Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State was asked—

Public Appointments (Women)

Fiona Mactaggart: What progress has been made in increasing the number of women in public appointments.

Barbara Roche: The Government are committed to increasing diversity in public appointments. We are determined that women should hold half of all public appointments. I shall host a series of seminars across the country to encourage more women to apply for such appointments. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will attend the seminar in Tyneside.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does she share my disappointment that Dame Rennie Fritchie's last report showed that we had moved backwards in the participation of women in public appointments? Will the Minister ask Departments to undertake equality audits of the criteria that they use for making public appointments so that we can ensure that women's experience of using public services and of voluntary participation are properly counted when public appointments are being made?

Barbara Roche: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some Departments—for example, the Department of Health—have recently done well with regard to appointments. When we consider public appointments, of course we need to look at experience across the whole range. That is why voluntary work is so important—as is the presence of so many women as school governors.
	The forms will be revised. The new format asks for examples of relevant skills gained within any field, such as voluntary work. Furthermore, the form will no longer feature an honours section—an aspect that may have deterred some people from applying.

Alan Beith: Given the need to encourage women to apply for public appointments, might not women be influenced by the fate of women who hold such appointments, such as Elizabeth France, the information commissioner, who has indicated that she is not seeking reappointment, as her four-year term of office would not have enabled her at any stage to use the freedom of information powers due to the Government's delay? Do not the Government need to be seen to support those women who take on public appointments?

Barbara Roche: It is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman has gone down that track. As he knows, Elizabeth France leaves her position with a great deal of good will for her tremendous work, and the Government—and everybody—have the highest regard for her. It is well recognised that after two terms the usual practice is to hold an open competition. That is what is taking place in this case.

Joan Walley: May I say how much I welcome all the work that the Government are doing to encourage more women into public life? I welcome the series of seminars. When my hon. Friend organises where they are to be held, will she look closely at holding one in north Staffordshire, in order that we can encourage more women—especially young women—to take up public office?

Barbara Roche: It is not possible to cover everywhere, but of course we shall consider where we are holding the seminars, and we shall also try to ensure that the participants invited to them come from the widest possible area.

Angela Watkinson: Is the hon. Lady aware that women applying for public appointments in health authorities have to declare their political affiliation? Does she agree that Conservative women are thus at a double disadvantage?

Barbara Roche: I reject that completely. The hon. Lady should look at the record of the previous Conservative Government, whom she supported.

Piara S Khabra: What is the overall position of ethnic minority women as regards public appointments?

Barbara Roche: We want to look at that aspect. We shall try to publish some targets in the near future.

British-Irish Council

David Amess: If he will make a statement on his role in relation to the British-Irish Council.

John Prescott: I carry ministerial responsibility for the British-Irish Council and deputise for the Prime Minister at summit meetings when he is not able to attend.

David Amess: Why, before the Belfast agreement had been implemented, did the Government start making concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA—concessions that were not required and have not been reciprocated—in terms of special arrangements for their Members of Parliament to have offices in the House and an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists?

John Prescott: Those matters have been addressed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the House has been informed of the Government's position. It did not affect the decisions at the summit meetings.

Harry Barnes: The British-Irish Council is an executive body, but there is a de facto shadow parliamentary body: the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. Unfortunately, Ulster Unionists will not attend its meetings because they see it as having come out of the Anglo-Irish agreement. Would not it be a good idea to move towards establishing it as a parliamentary wing of the British-Irish Council under the provisions of the Belfast agreement? Ulster Unionists could then join without a problem.

John Prescott: My hon. Friend has expressed that view on a number of occasions. I personally take the view that the British-Irish Council is the best way to deal with those difficulties in Northern Ireland. That is the Government's position, and it is what we intend to do.

Tim Collins: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for what he has said on this important topic. May I remind him that, as the Prime Minister and many other Ministers on all sides have rightly said, the Belfast agreement must be seen to be operating in all its particulars simultaneously? He will know that it was envisaged that the Council of the Isles would meet twice a year at summit level, but it has not yet been possible for it to do so. Is his aim and hope that it will meet twice at summit level this year?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. It was the intention, as originally set out in the agreement, to meet twice a year. There have been certain difficulties: one of the meetings was cancelled because it would have taken place on the day of the sad death of the First Minister in Scotland. Of course, the difficulties of the discussions in Northern Ireland also meant that we could not hold the council meeting. It is our intention to hold meetings twice a year; the next meeting will be held in Jersey.

Social Exclusion

Roger Casale: What steps he is taking to promote better co-ordination between Government Departments in relation to combating social exclusion.

Barbara Roche: The social exclusion unit works with all other relevant Departments in developing policy to combat social exclusion. Part of the unit's implementation strategy includes establishing units in other Departments that can co-ordinate activity across Whitehall.

Roger Casale: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree with Churches Together in Wimbledon and many other voluntary and charitable organisations in my constituency that we should continue to strengthen the role of the Government in tackling the plight of homelessness and rough sleepers in major cities, such as London, and that a joined-up approach to government, involving many Departments working together, may be essential to achieve lasting success in relation to those issues?

Barbara Roche: Yes. I congratulate the rough sleepers unit, led by Louise Casey, on its remarkable achievement—a 62 per cent. reduction in numbers. By March 2002, the unit will have provided more than 1,000 additional places in hostels. The joined-up approach has been achieved because different Departments—for example, the Ministry of Defence, which has done some very good work in this area—are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health to ensure that people engage in prevention work as well.

Virginia Bottomley: Does the Minister agree that one of the factors that leads to social exclusion is inadequate mental health services for children and young people? Will she personally examine the system of funding young people's mental health services? Does she believe that there should be education, social services and health care, or it is that, at the lower end, the burden is placed on the Home Office because the young people become subject to prison sentences? In particular, will she reply to me about the funding of Young Minds—an excellent organisation that is unable to get funding from any of those different joined-up Departments?

Barbara Roche: The right hon. Lady makes a very serious point about the fact that this issue involves not just one Department; it goes across several Departments, which is why she may well be interested in several of the social exclusion unit's current projects, which range from the educational achievement of young people in care to ex-offenders. I undertake to write to her about the details of the funding issue that she raises, but a number of Departments have worked together to address the subject of young people, especially children at risk.

Roy Beggs: What methodology is used to target social need and overcome social exclusion? Do the Government plan to revise the means by which social need is targeted?

Barbara Roche: The hon. Gentleman raises an important subject. There are many reasons why people go in and out of poverty. Of course, income levels are part of that, so the most frequently used measure is that of households below 60 per cent. of median income, but there are other causes. For example, lack of skills or qualifications and poor health can have an effect, which is why a co-ordinated approach is needed.

Tim Collins: I applaud the Government on their wish to tackle social exclusion. It is a noble objective but, as the Minister will recognise, it is important to judge it by results rather than by rhetoric. Will she reconfirm the commitment made by the Prime Minister in 1996
	"to end the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation"? If she reconfirms that as a Government objective, will she share my disappointment that, in fact, the number of families sleeping in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has increased by 152 per cent. since 1997 to an all-time high?

Barbara Roche: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman raises this issue given the position that his Government took on dealing with housing and homelessness. Of course, there is an obligation not only to tackle rough sleeping but to examine the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and to see what can be done about them. That is why the Government are engaging in a programme with social landlords to make sure that much more social housing is available.

Broadband Networks

Michael Connarty: What progress has been made in centralised procurement of broadband networks for Government use.

Christopher Leslie: Broadband is a faster "always on" internet system that offers significant new benefits for individuals, businesses and users of public services. The public sector is the largest single consumer of broadband technology, so the Government are actively examining how that purchasing power might lever growth in the market more widely.

Michael Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will have no doubt read in the Financial Times today that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who was speaking in South Korea, has commended the South Korean Government for their programme. They have invested £600 million in constructing a broadband network that is used by 8 million people. In Britain, only 600,000 people use broadband at present. Surely, the Government, who spend £2 billion through their various Departments to procure broadband services, should be getting together to make one procurement order that would, because of their purchasing power, drive up quality and spread the use of broadband. Can the Government not see themselves as a driving force for broadband initiatives if the private sector will not come to our rescue?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend makes entirely the right point. The Government are important not only as a regulator of this industry but as a consumer. A number of different infrastructure sharing opportunities exist, not least the academic networks and the investment that is being made in schools. Broadband is extremely important not because of the technology itself but because of what it can deliver in terms of new opportunities for learning and technology in the internet age.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister is absolutely right to point out the importance of broadband. However, with the devolution of government to regions outside London, is he aware that broadband is not available widely throughout the United Kingdom? What are the Government going to do about that? Does he recall that the Prime Minister boasted in 1997 that broadband would be available to all throughout the United Kingdom by 1999? That has not happened. Is that yet another gimmicky promise not met?

Christopher Leslie: Much as the hon. Gentleman might want the telecommunications industry to be wholly owned by the Government, the broadband capital investment network is led by industry itself. Although a significant proportion of rural areas in particular are not covered at present, 60 per cent. of the population have potential access to broadband even though only 1 per cent. sign up to it at present.

Civil Emergencies

Joan Ryan: What the role of his Department is in responding to civil emergencies.

Christopher Leslie: The role of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the Cabinet Office is to co-ordinate efforts across government to improve the effectiveness of civil contingency and emergency planning.

Joan Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he comment on the role of local authorities in dealing with civil emergencies and tell us whether he has had any contact with them on this issue since the tragic events of 11 September? Furthermore, will he comment on the resource issue that would face a local authority dealing with a civil emergency?

Christopher Leslie: This is a useful opportunity to pay tribute to the many emergency planning officers who work extremely hard in local authorities throughout the country to make sure that our emergency plans are up to date and are regularly exercised. They do a fantastic job. In the light of the events of 11 September, we have updated our guidance and are making sure that we are in regular discussions with local authorities and, in particular, with the Local Government Association.

Gary Streeter: For those of us living in Devon, the foot and mouth crisis in the past year came pretty close to a civil emergency. Will the Minister today agree to the Government holding a full public inquiry into the disease so that lessons can be learned for the future, and if not, why not?

Christopher Leslie: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, a number of inquiries are under way into foot and mouth. The Civil Contingencies Secretariat seeks to ensure that all the different Departments that take a lead in tackling such emergencies have improved co-ordination so that we can be more effective in future.

Andrew Miller: Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the advice that the Civil Aviation Authority has given on overfly zones, in particular on the incidence of aircraft that have been held in holding patterns over high-risk sites? I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that there are more appropriate places to hold aircraft, even though our airspace is very crowded.

Christopher Leslie: I shall certainly discuss with officials the point that my hon. Friend makes. I know that the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has been considering the issue of aviation and the possible vulnerability of key sites, especially major chemical sites, for example. We have to be vigilant and ensure that we reduce vulnerability wherever possible.

Alistair Burt: The Minister may not be aware of a recent incident in Sandy in my constituency when a package that was suspected of containing anthrax caused a full-scale public emergency—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise.

Alistair Burt: In the course of dealing with the necessary decontamination and the obvious personal aspects of that, no woman officer was available in the emergency team, which caused understandable distress. Will the Minister liaise with his colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that there is a solution to that problem, so that women officers are present whenever possible to deal with women who have been evacuated and need decontamination?

Christopher Leslie: This is an extremely important point. The guidance issued to reflect the chemical and biological risk that was perceived to be a problem in respect of postal services needs to include the way in which emergency services respond. There is no specific credible threat at present to the postal service in general, but the Cabinet Office is always reviewing the adequacy of our advice to the authorities on such matters.

Global Poverty

Linda Gilroy: What recent visits he has made to promote an international approach to tackling global poverty.

John Prescott: Tackling global poverty will be a key focus of the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg later this year, better known as the Rio 10 conference. I discussed preparations for the summit on my recent visit to the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that environmental issues are closely related to tackling poverty, especially with regard to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol? Will he assure the House that he will continue to work on those issues, which are as important to tackling poverty as they are to sustainability issues at home?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the global problems that require global solutions and global travel—[Interruption.]—whether Opposition Members like that or not. I think that the global travels of the Prime Minister, especially in respect of Afghanistan, have been to the benefit of world peace and prosperity.
	The conference on sustainability is not only about the environment, which follows on from the Rio conference, but about how we deal with poverty. Frankly, if we gave as much priority and commitment to dealing with poverty and prosperity as we have rightly given to combating terrorism, the world would be a better place.

Tony Baldry: Is it not a sad fact that according to the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development statistics, the wealthier nations of the world collectively are now spending less in real terms on international development than they were 10 years ago? If we are determined to tackle global poverty, could not the Government at least give a lead by setting a clear date by which they will meet the 0.7 per cent. target of Government wealth to be allocated to international development?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman's point about average spending on aid by all countries is right, but this country's spending has increased. We are showing leadership in that respect. The proportion of spending on aid decreased under the previous Administration. The resources necessary to deal with poverty amount to about £50 billion. At the Monterrey conference in March, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be closely involved in efforts to marshal such support in a new trust fund, which he suggested, so that we can make dealing with poverty a priority, as we have done in respect of terrorism.

John Hume: Does the Minister agree that although it is essential and correct to give humanitarian aid to countries suffering from severe poverty, if we want to give them long-term and permanent assistance so that they can rely on themselves, the best way to assist them is to help them set up permanent education systems for the whole community? Does he agree that the point is strongly exemplified by Afghanistan, where 85 per cent. of women cannot read or write because they have not been allowed to go to school, and 65 per cent. of men cannot read or write because going to school is not permanent? Education will create societies where people can provide for themselves.

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, the objectives that have been set by the United Nations identify education as well as poverty relief as important millennium objectives. We have set targets; we are discussing finance on a global scale to enable us to achieve them.

Ministers' Code of Conduct

Andrew Turner: When the code of conduct for Ministers was last revised.

John Prescott: A revised ministerial code was issued in July 2001, which took into account the recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Administration and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Since then, in response to a recommendation from the Public Administration Committee, the Government have agreed to amend paragraph 27 of the code, which now requires that all announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament. I am sure that the House will welcome that.

Andrew Turner: When, then, will the rest of the code be enforced? We had Ministers with houses paid for by colleagues, Ministers with houses belonging to their wives, and Ministers with flats belonging to railwaymen's unions. If hon. Members have an independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, is it not even more important that Ministers, who have executive responsibility, should have an independent commissioner for the standards that they are supposed to uphold?

John Prescott: We heard lots of allegations, without a great deal of substance.

Michael Fabricant: There was in The Guardian.

John Prescott: It being in The Guardian is hardly the highest of recommendations. That is me finished again tomorrow. We have Select Committees that make recommendations, and they made recommendations about how the code should apply. I am glad that in a recent statement the Select Committee welcomed a number of changes that we have made to the code of conduct. For example, the code should be a framework for decisions. The seven principles of public life that are applied to public servants should now apply to Ministers. Further recommendations were welcomed. There was a gap, as the Select Committee pointed out—for example, we rejected the recommendation that the Prime Minister should appear before the Select Committee, and that there should be a separate ombudsman. We have made clear in our reports the matters on which we disagree with the Committee.

Tim Collins: On the enforcement of the code of conduct for Ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister will recall that the code contains a reference to the requirement for Ministers to comply in full with the Register of Members' Interests. Is it not regrettable that the Deputy Prime Minister himself has still failed to comply with the finding of the Standards and Privileges Committee that he should register his RMT property connection? Will not many commuters believe that the Government's spineless refusal to take action against this week's shameful rail strikes is connected with that link at the highest level to the RMT?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has been geed up to be a little more aggressive in his questioning, but he is not consistent with the facts. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] I am going to answer. The allegations made by Opposition Members were investigated by the Committee and rejected. All three accusations investigated by Mrs. Filkin and put before the Committee were rejected. In those circumstances, I was not required to register the interest. The Committee invited me to do so and I talked to the Chairman about the matter, but since I had not committed an offence, why should I register the interest?

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Alistair Carmichael: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 January.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Prime Minister give a commitment today to pay the Scottish Executive the estimated £20 million that will be saved by the Department for Work and Pensions in payments of attendance allowance as a result of the Scottish Executive's decision to introduce free personal care for the elderly in Scotland? Is it not deeply ironic that the political courage shown by the Labour party in Scotland, along with Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Executive, should be met with such cynical swindling by none other than the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)?

Tony Blair: First, let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are increasing enormously the amount of health service and social care spending in Scotland, as elsewhere. That is of course a vast increase over anything that the Liberal Democrats have ever asked for. Secondly, let me assure him that as part of devolution it is of course possible for Scotland to take a different view of the best way in which to spend the resources that we have.
	We believe that the best way is to put money into free nursing care, which we are doing, but to use the rest of the money to build up the social service infrastructure in England, which we are doing also. We do not, however, believe that the way that the Scottish Executive have taken is right for England. That surely is a consequence of devolution. In both Scotland and England, however, the amount of resources going into social care and the national health service is increasing massively.

Kevin Barron: The Prime Minister will be familiar with the tragic killing in Macedonia of paratrooper Ian Collins in August last year while on a NATO peacekeeping mission. My right hon. Friend will have seen in the national press today that Ian Collins' mother, father and girlfriend are out in Macedonia at the moment seeking justice from the Macedonian judicial system. According to the Ministry of Defence, they are being escorted by Mr. John Mitchell, the vice-consul out there. I ask my right hon. Friend to do all in his power to ensure that my constituents receive justice for the tragic death that occurred on such a gallant mission.

Tony Blair: I totally share the concern of my hon. Friend and of his constituents at the way in which the issue has been handled and at the present outcome. We are in close contact with the family and also in close touch with the Macedonian authorities, and we will do everything we possibly can to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Iain Duncan Smith: Who is in charge of transport policy?

Tony Blair: The Secretary of State for Transport.

Iain Duncan Smith: I know that the Prime Minister has been away for a long time, but while he has been away, his transport policy has descended into farce. He has Lord Birt, with all his great expertise on railways, in charge of long-term transport policy; he has a management consultant in charge of short-term transport policy; and today we read that his Deputy Chief Whip is in charge of negotiating with striking rail unions. Just what is the purpose of the Transport Secretary?

Tony Blair: First, in relation to John Birt, it was announced back in September that he would undertake a lot of work for the policy unit in Downing street about long-term trends in the transport industry. Since Governments have had policy units, as far as I am aware, for decades, quite why that is inconsistent with having a Transport Secretary I do not know. Secondly, what the Transport Secretary does is provide the long-term investment for the railways—and also sort out the appalling mess that was left by railway privatisation.
	We on this side of the House are in favour of that long-term extra investment in our railways and we believe that Railtrack could not go on as it was, getting billions and billions of pounds of public money and not delivering a decent service to passengers. Now, perhaps on those two issues—the extra investment and what should happen to Railtrack—the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views.

Iain Duncan Smith: The one thing that is absolutely clear about this Transport Secretary is that he is not there to make the trains run on time. The figures that are now available, which he stopped publishing, show before the strike, Connex South Eastern delays up 50 per cent., South West Trains delays up 70 per cent. and First Great Eastern Railways delays up 95 per cent. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that he was going to be in post for years and years. Surely, the Prime Minister knows that the only certainty is that, under him, the chaos on the railways will be in place for years and years.

Tony Blair: rose—

Iain Duncan Smith: Oh no. I do not want the Prime Minister to miss this point. Is not it time that he sacked his Transport Secretary?

Tony Blair: First, it is absolutely correct that after the Hatfield rail disaster—yes, it is true—reliability went down very considerably. That happened for a very simple reason. After Hatfield, it became clear that the state of the railway infrastructure was far worse than anyone had ever imagined. That is the result of cumulated under-investment going back many years. Let me give Opposition Members the figures on investment. In the first 10 years of the last Conservative Government—this is at constant prices—there was investment of about £940 million a year. In the next eight years, there was £1.4 billion investment. In the first term of this Government, that rose to £2.2 billion. However, under the comprehensive spending review, for the next three years, it will be £4.4 billion, or three times the amount that the last Conservative Government put in.
	The difference between us, very simply, is that we believe that putting this extra investment into the railways is important. Let me read to the House, however, the policy of the Conservative party. The shadow Chancellor said:
	"I believe our aim should . . . be to reduce the proportion of national output taken towards the state by 35 per cent."
	The shadow Home Secretary said:
	"We would like to head downwards to 35 per cent. of GDP."
	The leader of the Conservative party said that
	"our target must . . . be the mid-30s as an overall percentage of public expenditure".—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1096.]
	If we had 35 per cent. of gross domestic product as the public spending target, it would mean £60 billion worth of cuts in investment—cuts that would wipe out the entirety of the extra investment in the railways. We believe in putting that investment in. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can try to shout me down, but let us understand the difference between the two parties. We believe that this extra investment should go in; let them state their position.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Linda Perham: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the success of the British Institute for Brain Injured Children, the Disabilities Trust and my constituents, Ivan and Charika Corea, in getting 2002 declared as autism awareness year? Will he ensure that the national and local bodies that are responsible for health, social services and education co-operate in the joined-up provision of services that autistic people and their families desperately need?

Tony Blair: Yes, I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents and the organisations concerned. Autism awareness year should give us the opportunity to raise the awareness of this condition, which is very debilitating and is distressing for families; in addition, it should ensure that we can learn more about what causes autism. She will be pleased to know that, in addition to the measures being taken by the voluntary sector, the Government are putting more resources and research into exactly how autism occurs and how we should deal with it.

Charles Kennedy: I acknowledge the Government's shambolic inheritance in terms of transport policy, but does the Prime Minister not feel the need to explain to people across the country why today, in year five of a Labour Government, with a generally benign economic scenario over that period and a three-figure Commons majority throughout, our transport policy is still a shambles?

Tony Blair: There are two reasons why the problems on the railways have arisen. The first is related to privatisation, which is generally accepted to have been a disaster. That is now being sorted out, with the new company being restructured, the new Strategic Rail Authority director and the new management in the company all in place now. It will be sorted out in the next few months. Secondly, under-investment in the railways went on for a considerable period, but that is now being made good. On Monday, the new Strategic Rail Authority director, Richard Bowker, will publish the forward investment plans for the railways.
	As I said a moment or two ago, after the Hatfield rail disaster it became obvious that the condition of the railways was far worse than people had thought. It could have been said that post-1997, the moment that we came to power, we should have realised that that privatisation could not work in any shape or form—[Interruption.] "Yes," one of the Conservatives says. Whoever we take criticism from about rail privatisation, I hope that we will not hear any from the Conservative party. We believed that it was better at least to give the system a chance to work, because of the upheaval that would be caused if we had to change it, as we are now having to, once it became clear that Railtrack was unsustainable. The extra investment will go in, the company will be restructured and it will be focused on improvements in the railways alone. I believe that those will happen in time.

Charles Kennedy: The whole country will share the Prime Minister's sense of entertainment about where the Conservatives come from on this issue; there is no doubt about that. In response to my question, however, he said two things. First, he said that in the next few months the problems would be sorted out once and for all. Last February, in reply to me during Prime Minister's questions, he said that rail services would be back to normal by Easter—one wonders which Easter he was referring to. Secondly, the Prime Minister talks about persistent under-investment, and he is correct—but what about the under-investment during the first four years of this Labour Government?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the first four years of this Government. As I have just pointed out, the figures show that even in our first term we were spending—in investment, which of course means long lead times for new equipment and so on to kick in—about double what the Conservative Government were spending. Over the next three years that sum will rise to about three times what they were spending. I simply point out to the right hon. Gentleman that not merely are we spending far more than the Conservatives ever spent, and are due to spend more, but we are spending far more than the Liberal Democrats ever asked us to.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: In anticipation of tomorrow's important debate, will the Prime Minister consider what is the point of replacing a second Chamber that was rotten because of inherited patronage with a second Chamber that is rotten because of contemporary patronage?

Tony Blair: First, the independent Members of the House of Lords will be appointed by the independent commission. Secondly, the political appointments can be made in one of two ways. Those Members could be wholly elected—some people here in the House agree with that—or they could be appointed through the political parties. In either event, those would obviously be political appointments. That is a matter for the House to debate, and of course we will listen carefully to the House's views about the right way to proceed with House of Lords reform. However, I have to say to my hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Members that, listening to those views, it is clear that there are almost as many different views about what should happen with the House of Lords as there are Members of Parliament.

Michael Fallon: Is the Prime Minister aware that all his talk of billions of pounds, of percentages and of investment on the railways will be of little comfort to commuters in my constituency, whose service has deteriorated and is continuing to deteriorate? He has been in charge for five years. Why does he think that Labour is so bad at improving public transport?

Tony Blair: As I pointed out a moment ago, the real fall-down in reliability came after the Hatfield rail disaster, when it was discovered that the state of the track was far worse than anyone had ever thought. At present, we also have the issue of strikes on the railways. I have to say that this is a totally unacceptable way to resolve disputes in this day and age. There exists in the agreement between the management and the unions the power for this matter to be referred to arbitration. I would have thought that that, rather than strike action, was a far better way to resolve this issue. In any event, the long-term future of the railways depends on extra investment and the sorting out of Railtrack, which we found, after Hatfield, was a company that simply could not go on in the same way as before. Both those things have to be done if the railways are to be put in order.

Andy Burnham: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is a growing problem in Leigh, and many towns like it, with gangs of youths who feel that they are above the law, damaging property and generally making people's lives a misery? Is he aware of the new policy being tested in my constituency by Greater Manchester police, in which calls from the public are prioritised and patrols are no longer sent in response to problems with teenage gangs of this kind? Does he share my concern that this sends out the wrong message to the public, and does he agree that our constituents want to see firm action against this type of behaviour remaining a high priority for the police?

Tony Blair: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that people want a high priority to be given to tackling street violence and antisocial crime. I know that the Home Secretary has asked for a report from the Greater Manchester police about the change in policy that my hon. Friend has just outlined. However, extra measures are now proposed for youth justice and there will be an increase in police numbers coming about as a result of extra investment. I think that the Greater Manchester police will, in the end, have more police than ever before under this investment proposal, and I am sure that there will be measures on the way to tackle this problem. But in the end, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the whole community must be engaged in rooting out this behaviour.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Minister with responsibility for crime reduction has been quoted as saying:
	"I feel anxious about my family's safety and my own with growing street crime."
	Is the Minister right to be anxious?

Tony Blair: That will be overtaken by a letter from the Minister to the newspaper concerned, saying that he said no such thing.

Iain Duncan Smith: If, apparently, the Minister said no such thing, was he not, in reality, in saying no such thing, correct in what he apparently did not say?
	Muggings are up by 40 per cent. The Home Office's own figures show that. Assaults are up by 20 per cent. and mobile phone thefts—about which the Minister apparently did not say anything—are up by a staggering 371 per cent. Is not the reality for the Prime Minister and his Government that they are failing to tackle violent crime and breaking their pledge to be tough on crime?

Tony Blair: No. The British crime survey figures show that crime is down overall. Indeed, crime is down very substantially since this Government came to office. Some of us remember that, under the last Conservative Government, crime doubled. Violent crime is down, and so is burglary and vehicle theft. There is a particular problem at the moment with street violence, especially in relation to mobile phones, and it is precisely for that reason that the Government are going to work with the industry and the police to make sure that we tackle the problem.

Iain Duncan Smith: Only someone who has become so isolated from the general public could say that violent crime is down, when his own figures show that it is up. People feel the kind of fear about walking in their streets at night, which the Prime Minister no doubt does not understand. The figures also show that Londoners are five times more likely to suffer attacks of violent crime than those who live in New York, and three times more likely than those who live in Los Angeles. Now that the Prime Minister is back home, should he not stay home and get a grip?

Tony Blair: First, in relation to New York and so on, I think that those figures are wrong. In New York, the murder rate is about five times as high as in London. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in relation to the overall statistics for crime. The British crime survey—which the Conservatives have always said is the most accurate survey—shows that crime is down. [Interruption.] Those are the Home Office figures.
	The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, however, to draw attention to a problem that the Government have also drawn attention to, which is the problem of street violence, particularly that involving youngster upon youngster in relation to mobile phones. We believe that there should be tougher sentences in respect of such crime, and more secure places. We are putting in the investment to provide those secure places. We are halving the time it takes to get persistent juvenile offenders to court, and that measure has now been completed.
	The new criminal justice legislation will consider the issue of bail in relation to such offences and more action against antisocial behaviour. There is more investment in closed circuit television, because that is proven to have an effect on reducing this type of crime. As a result of the extra investment, which was opposed by the Conservative party, there will be more police on our streets. That is a sensible way to deal with the problem.

Doug Naysmith: I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the current difficulties facing the aerospace industry, which are due, at least in part, to the events of 11 September. Can he assure me that the Government are doing everything possible to assist that crucial industry with what we all hope will be short-term difficulties? In particular, will he have discussions with Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Defence about the possibility of bringing forward projects that are already agreed, and awarding training grants, which would be very welcome?

Tony Blair: It is important that we do two things. First, we must make provision to help the industry through the particular impact of 11 September. In so far as we are able, we are doing that. Some £40 million has gone to help the industry. I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the aerospace and aviation industry in his constituency. We should try to bring forward some of the large contracts that are being placed abroad. I am pleased to say that we are doing well in that regard, but we will try to do more. The aerospace and aviation industry is an important part of this country's manufacturing base. It is highly skilled and highly sensitive to new technology, and we shall do everything we can to build on it.

Graham Brady: During the Prime Minister's current visit to the United Kingdom, would he turn his attention to the case of my constituent, Mr. Gavin Burns, of which I have given him notice? The eye hospital in Manchester could save Mr. Burns's sight only by using photodynamic therapy at a cost to him of £7,500. Conventional laser treatment available on the NHS would have destroyed the centre of his one remaining good eye, leaving him unable to see the faces of his grandchildren. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is unacceptable that Mr. Burns and others like him should be forced to pay for treatment that is clearly and obviously necessary?

Tony Blair: I believe that it is unacceptable that people are forced to pay for their treatment in that way, which is precisely why it is so important that we get the extra investment into the national health service and build up its capacity. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, as the position of the Conservative party is to force people into private insurance, criticism from Conservative Members simply will not wash.

Graham Brady: What is the Prime Minister doing about the case of Mr. Burns?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing about it. We are putting extra investment into the national health service. I am afraid that, whatever he feels for his constituent, the position of the Conservative party is to take that investment back out again.

Joan Ryan: Just four weeks ago, on 12 December, 13-year-old Martin Lamparter, who lived and went to school in my constituency, died in a tragic accident involving fireworks. His family are absolutely devastated. In the light of that terrible loss of a young life and the almost 1,000 firework-related injuries that occur each year, would the Prime Minister look again at whether the legislation that allows the retail sale of fireworks is adequate, and whether further measures could be taken to protect the public, especially young people, from the dangers that fireworks present?

Tony Blair: The risks associated with fireworks are very clear, as my hon. Friend says. Once the Government have the full statistics and the results of the survey of firework accidents that have occurred this year, we will certainly consider whether any changes are necessary. As a result of action that has been taken over many years, we have succeeded in reducing the number of accidents significantly, but if something remains to be done, once we have completed the survey and done the analysis of what changes need to be put in place, we will change the system even further.

Congestion Charges

Richard Ottaway: If he will make a statement on the Government's action to consult on the introduction of congestion charges.

Tony Blair: The Government require local authorities to undertake full and effective consultation before seeking approval for any local congestion-charging scheme in England outside London. Consultations about London schemes are a matter for the Mayor.

Richard Ottaway: Does the Prime Minister recall, during the London mayoral and Assembly elections, campaigning on a manifesto featuring his photograph and signature on the first page and, on the front, the words "New Labour, new London, no congestion charges"? What exactly does he mean by that?

Tony Blair: What I mean is that the decision is obviously for the Mayor to make. It will be for him to decide whether to introduce congestion charging. The Government's role is to ensure that any money used for congestion charging is put back into public transport. That, we believe, is the sensible way in which to proceed.

Engagements

Betty Williams: Now that the whole country is free of foot and mouth disease, what plans has my right hon. Friend to restore and support the tourism industry—particularly in my constituency and in north-west Wales, where tourism is vital to the lives of many citizens?

Tony Blair: We are trying to ensure, by means of funds for the tourist boards not just in Wales but throughout the country, that we give a significant boost to British tourism. Spending on the advertising campaign will run into millions of pounds. It is having an impact, and I understand that the Welsh Assembly is making a further £2 million available to the Welsh tourist board to boost the industry specifically in Wales.

John Baron: Having recently seen deprivation abroad, the Prime Minister knows that the European Union's overseas aid package is motivated by politics. Poland receives twice as much aid as the whole of Latin America and Asia combined. When will the Prime Minister stop the EU from playing petty politics with the poor of the world?

Tony Blair: The negotiations that are taking place with Poland about accession to the European Union will deal with many of those issues. We are in favour of European enlargement, and in favour of Poland's coming into the European Union. As for European policy as a whole, if we can make changes in the European Union's aid and development policy, it will be only because we have some influence within the European Union itself. The worst course that we could follow, in having that influence, would be to pursue the policies of isolationism that are exhibited constantly by the Conservative party, not least at this Question Time.

Michael Foster: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the economic test currently faced by flood prevention schemes, and will know that many argue that it fails residents and businesses affected by flooding. Will he consider modernising the formula to take account of the huge social costs incurred by those affected, and to make it easier to establish flood defence schemes for residents and businesses in such places as Worcester?

Tony Blair: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We are looking at ways in which we can improve the effectiveness of the resources that we put in for protection against flooding, but we are increasing those resources significantly, by some £100 million or more. I will certainly look into my hon. Friend's point, but I must tell him that in the end the important thing is for the Government to make the investment, and for local people to make the final decision on how that investment can best be used.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that no Minister in his Government played any part, through pressure or influence of any kind, in the effective dismissal of Elizabeth Filkin, and that her findings against the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in his Government played no part in it either? When will he force the Deputy Prime Minister to abide by his ministerial code, and register his pecuniary interest in the RMT?

Tony Blair: As I heard just before the beginning of Prime Minister's Question Time, the Deputy Prime Minister dealt very comprehensively with the usual rubbish from the Conservative party on this issue. In respect of Mrs. Filkin, if the hon. Gentleman has any such evidence he should present it to the proper authorities rather than engaging in the usual Conservative party smear.

Michael Jabez Foster: It was great to see my right hon. Friend in Afghanistan earlier this week—[Laughter.]—encouraging our very brave troops, but is it possible to employ our peacekeeping troops in an aid programme? I understand that many of our aid programmes are being hampered by bandits. It would be extremely helpful if particular use could be made of our troops' expertise.

Tony Blair: It is important that the troops reduce the possibilities of instability. However, I was fascinated by Conservative Members shouting at my hon. Friend for saying that we should support the British troops in Afghanistan and what they are doing. Of course, that is part of the Conservative party's new policy. It is against us being part of the security force in Afghanistan. It is against us being in Sierra Leone. It is against us being in Macedonia. It is against us being anywhere near India and Pakistan, so it appears. It is against us being in Europe. It is the Howard Hughes school of diplomacy, but it is not very effective.

Points of Order

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you give special allowance to the Prime Minister, but you have ruled on previous occasions that it is not the role of those on the Government Front Bench to talk about Conservative party policy, or at least their version of it. Earlier in Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister spoke for over one minute giving his incorrect version of Conservative party policy, and he repeated it for the final 30 seconds of the session. Surely there must be a limit to which he can abuse Prime Minister's Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will let the Speaker run Prime Minister's Question Time, that will be very helpful indeed.

Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised with the Prime Minister a question of constituency significance, of which I had given him prior notice, relating to a particular constituent. Is it not the usual courtesy in the House that when a Member has given notice of such a specific case, that Member has a right to expect a response on it? The Prime Minister did not even allude to the case of my constituent. I give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I am greatly dissatisfied with the Prime Minister's response and that I will seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Right to Self-employment

Mark Prisk: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about self-employment.
	The Bill, which particularly creates the right to self-employment, is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the chairman and both vice-chairmen of the all-party small business group. I take the opportunity to thank the many Members who have offered their support.
	The self-employed are vital to our economy both nationally and locally. Numbering in excess of 4 million people, they comprise of owner-managers of shops, factories and farms as well as freelances working in the media, information technology and the creative industries. Indeed, it could be said that Members of the House can technically be included among their ranks, so I guess I should declare an interest. Together, those 4 million people are leading creators of this country's wealth. They provide most of the local services that we use and employ approximately half of those working in the private sector.
	At the same time, because the nature of work is changing, self-employment is becoming an increasingly popular option. The days of working from nine to five are gone, and the impact of technology means that when and where we work is constantly changing. Self-employment has the flexibility to respond to those changes, which is why it is increasingly the first option for many people at work.
	A good example of that is the recent huge rise in the number of self-employed women, who have set up their own businesses and in the process smashed the glass ceiling. That is a wonderful market example of challenging discrimination. However, self-employed people matter not merely for their economic work. For me, the self-employed embody a value, which is one of the reasons why I came into the House in the first place: it is the simple idea that, no matter who one is and what one's background, if one has the ability, the ambition and the will to work, one can be one's own boss and make one's way in the world.
	Sadly, in this country we do not seem to realise that full potential. Despite the excellent work of organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the self-employed continue to be discriminated against, whether it is by high street banks unfairly refusing mortgages or by the state handing out inferior benefits. The root of that negative attitude lies in the very status of self-employment. The onus lies with an individual wishing to become self-employed to prove his status. That is not, as it may seem, a simple process, because the regulations are based not on consistently applied criteria but on ever-changing case law.
	Thus many self-employed people have to prove and re-prove their status every year. Indeed, some have to do so for each contract. The House will recognise that that is an unreasonable requirement. After all, why should a fisherman or, for that matter, a freelance writer, have closely to follow the legal ins and outs and the latest verdicts, and then try to determine whether those apply to him or her now or in the future? Accumulatively, that reliance on changing case law represents an appalling waste of time and money. For example, if only half of the 4 million self-employed lose two hours a month in dealing with that problem, that represents more than 3 million working days lost to the economy every year.
	In short, the current approach is confusing, wasteful and adversarial. It is also inherently unfair, because it bases the burden of proof not on the state but on the individual. The purpose of my Bill is to reverse that situation by creating a right to become self-employed, removing the confusion of ever-changing rules, and switching the burden of proof from the individual to the state. In practical terms, my Bill would achieve that by requiring individuals to register as self-employed, with Government agencies then being entitled to challenge that registration for a period of up to, say, six months.
	By registering, an individual would make an informed and positive choice, and registration itself would remove the need to continue to rely on ever-changing case law, with all the uncertainty and waste that that creates. Equally, by registering, an individual would recognise both the freedom and the responsibility that self- employment brings. Rights must balance benefits with burdens.
	Let me offer two examples, one of a burden and one of a benefit. First, when an individual registers, he or she will be required to have insurance cover appropriate to the nature of their work. That would be particularly relevant to those working in a hazardous environment, such as road haulage or agriculture. Conversely, registration could allow people to opt out of paying class 4 national insurance contributions, especially given that state benefits are fully paid for by class 2 contributions.
	That right to self-employment would be enormously beneficial. It would give people a real freedom of choice while emphasising their responsibilities; it would bring relative certainty for most small enterprises—an essential ingredient for good business; it would save millions of productive working days, and thereby millions of pounds in lost revenue for the Government; and it would significantly reduce the need for the Government constantly to redefine self-employment in order to regulate and tax that activity. There could be wider benefits from registration in the workplace, which Ministers may wish to consider, such as trying to define a worker and an employee.
	The self-employed lie at the heart of our economic life. They are the source of most private sector jobs; they provide the services upon which most of us rely; and they represent a vital source of innovation. Equally, social and economic changes are likely to increase the demand for self-employment. As a recent survey by the Prince's Trust has shown, record numbers of school leavers now want to be their own boss when they enter work. They know that in a highly competitive, global economy, in which footloose multinationals regularly downsize—as the term has it—it is perhaps self-employment that will give them some measure of control over their working lives. For many of them, as the next generation of workers, it is the way ahead. That is why it is now time to update how the state interacts with the self-employed.
	We need to move away from a confusing, unfair and adversarial approach and towards giving people the right to choose how they work and the freedom and responsibility of that choice. The purpose of the Bill is to provide that right. It would not solve all of the problems in the relationship between Government and the self-employed. However, it represents a vital first step in overhauling how we treat the self-employed and I therefore commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. Richard Bacon, Mr. John Baron, Mr. Peter Duncan, Brian Cotter, Mr. Mark Francois, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Adrian Flook, Angela Watkinson, Mr. Kerry Pollard, Mr. George Osborne and Mr. Alistair Burt.

Right to Self-employment

Mr. Mark Prisk accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about self-employment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 April, and to be printed [Bill 79].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]
	 — 
	Clause 1
	 — 
	Extension of amnesty period

Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	'(3) Subsections (2)(b) and (3) are omitted.'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	'(3A) Subsections (2)(b) and (3) shall continue to have effect in respect of offences listed in the Schedule to the 1997 Act relating to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, with the words "later than 27th February 2005" substituted for the words "more than five years after the day on which this Act is passed".
	(3B) In respect of other offences listed in the Schedule to the 1997 Act, subsections (2)(b) and (3) are omitted.'.

John Reid: Happy new year.

Quentin Davies: I wish the Secretary of State and his colleagues a happy new year also, and we all hope that the people of Northern Ireland will have a happy new year. They certainly deserve a good new year after many years of difficulties and sacrifices, as well as continued disappointments in the implementation of the Belfast agreement, which is one of the matters with which we shall deal this afternoon.
	I welcome the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, to the Front Bench today and I am glad that she will conduct the case for the Government. She is a competent and experienced parliamentarian, although she will find that her pitch has been somewhat queered by a most extraordinarily and no doubt inadvertently frank statement on the subject of deadlines by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. I shall have occasion to refer to that point later.
	It is common ground between the Opposition and the Government that the Belfast agreement should be upheld and implemented urgently. Of course, it is not common ground that the Government should have chosen to go beyond the Belfast agreement and, before it is even implemented, to make a whole raft of new unilateral, gratuitous concessions. We are concerned that, by so doing, the Government have moved away from the basis of bipartisanship in Northern Ireland to which we are much attached. It is common ground that the Belfast agreement must be supported, and we wish to do everything possible to ensure that it is implemented.
	I believe totally in the Government's sincerity in wanting to bring about the implementation of the Belfast agreement. However, it is very much a matter of judgment as to whether they have conducted themselves in a very intelligent way in seeking to ensure that their influence maximised the chance that the Belfast agreement was implemented earlier rather than later. Moreover, if decommissioning was going to come about within the two-year time scale laid down in the Belfast agreement, was it sensible to release all the terrorist prisoners before even a start had been made on decommissioning? That too is a matter of judgment.
	We have been over that ground already, and will return to it. I think that history will be much less kind to the Government in that regard than they like to be to themselves. Nevertheless, it is very much common ground that decommissioning is essential, and it is one of the pillars of the Belfast agreement. All those who want peace and normalisation in that part of our country are obliged to do everything possible to ensure that decommissioning comes about, and that it does so earlier rather than later.
	The amendment goes to the heart of the Bill. If we want the rapid implementation of the Belfast agreement and the completion of decommissioning, is it more sensible to bring forward a Bill now that extends by five years the special regime of amnesty for decommissioning, or should the extension be for a lesser amount of time? We suggest that the extension should be for one year.
	The amendment turns on that question, as does the whole debate in this House about the Bill, as there is no argument about the fundamental necessity of achieving decommissioning. Although our approaches and methods may differ, I am sure that the willingness to complete the difficult but vital process of decommissioning is sincere among hon. Members of all parties.
	However, is it more sensible to set a deadline of five years rather than of one, and will that five-year deadline make the best possible contribution to rapid progress? Those questions must be asked, as the matter is somewhat counter-intuitive. One can never be certain of achieving anything in this life, least of all in Northern Irish politics at the present time. I shall therefore go through the only possible justifications for the course adopted by the Government in bringing to the House a Bill that extends the amnesty regime for five years, even though some of those justifications are merely theoretical.
	I should not be at all surprised to discover that the Minister of State, when she reads the briefing notes for her speech in response to this debate, will say that the Government are obliged to extend the deadline and that it is not realistic to suppose that decommissioning will be completed by 27 February. We concur with that, even though the Belfast agreement specified that decommissioning should have been completed more than a year and a half ago. I expect too that the Minister will say that the Bill that established the regime to enable decommissioning to take place—by providing the necessary amnesties and so forth—was also designed to last for five years. I expect that she will ask why the Government should make a change and renew those provisions for a shorter length of time.
	It seems to me extraordinarily naive to look at matters in that way, but the explanation may well be that the Government are merely taking out of the drawer the Bill that was introduced at the end of the previous Conservative Administration and carrying it forward for another five years and that they have given no thought as to whether five years is an appropriate length of time. I find it hard to believe that anyone could take that argument seriously, but it needs to be dealt with. As I doubt that I shall catch your eye later in the debate, Sir Alan, I shall deal with it now, pre-emptively.
	The answer is very simple. Five years ago, we were right at the beginning of the decommissioning and peace process. Indeed, the Belfast agreement had not been secured at that time, nor anything like it. The Bill that became the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 was introduced, probably more in hope than in expectation, by the previous Conservative Administration, and was supported by the then Labour Opposition. The idea was to create a framework so that if it were possible to get an agreement, decommissioning could take place and the modalities, the international commission and the appropriate legal regime could be established.
	If a Bill is introduced in that way—more in hope than in expectation—to provide a framework for a process that had not even begun or led to an initial agreement on decommissioning, quite a long time has to be provided. It was sensible and responsible to provide a framework for five years, renewable on an annual basis. I do not think that anyone would have quarrelled with that approach at the time, and I certainly have no quarrel with it in retrospect. However, the situation today is profoundly different.
	The Belfast agreement, now in place, provided for the whole process of decommissioning to be completed within two years, by July 2000. Yet we are now a year and a half away from that deadline and more than three and a half years away from the Belfast agreement itself. There has been only one small act of decommissioning by Sinn Fein-IRA and one small act, right at the beginning, by one of the loyalist paramilitary organisations. There has been nothing else to show for it in three and a half years.
	In those circumstances, to come back to the House with a Bill that provides a deadline of five years seems extraordinary. The Government seem to be saying, "We don't mind that no progress has been made over the past five years. Let's simply start again." That is an extraordinary approach, which would not be taken seriously by anybody who looked at the matter objectively to decide whether the Government were acting in a business-like and sensible fashion.
	The second argument for the Bill has been put forward in the media. The Government have used it in their background briefings, as did the Secretary of State, at least by implication, in his introductory remarks on Second Reading. The argument is that this is not a five-year deadline but a one-year deadline, renewable up to five years. To make that statement would be to risk not being taken seriously in the House, when we know that the procedure for dealing with statutory instruments is an unedifying farce. When the Government, with their large majority, introduce a Bill that provides for a new regime for five years and say that it will be renewed at the end of every year and could theoretically be thrown out by Parliament under the statutory instrument procedure, that is a fundamentally bogus statement. When the Government give a five-year deadline, they mean it to be for five years.
	Even more important than the credibility of such a measure in the House is its credibility outside the House. In Northern Ireland, specifically among the paramilitary organisations that need to take part in and complete the decommissioning process, only one conclusion can be drawn from the signals that the Government are sending by the way in which they have drafted the Bill: they are setting a final deadline of five years. We started with a five-year regime, which is now being renewed for a further five years. As I said on Second Reading, that sends the paramilitary organisations the simple message that there is no great urgency about decommissioning, that they can take their time about it and that the Government do not expect them to make rapid progress.
	It seems thoroughly regrettable and reprehensible that the Government should be sending such signals. It is deeply disappointing to all those in Northern Ireland, in both communities, who have been told ever since the Belfast agreement that the sacrifices they made would at least mean that the gun, the bullet and the arsenals of Semtex and weapons would be taken out of the system within a specific time. That is not happening and the deadline for that to happen is being extended.
	There is a third possible explanation for what the Government are doing and why they are insisting on a time scale of five years, although I hope that they will change their mind during the debate.
	If that explanation is true, and I am increasingly fearful that it is, it is extremely depressing: the five-year deadline the perverse signal that is being sent to the paramilitaries—did not come about owing to a fit of absence of mind or to naivety, but is part and parcel of a process that the Government were, perhaps involuntarily, sucked into during their negotiations, especially with Sinn Fein-IRA.
	Before Christmas, I did what I could to draw the attention of the House to part of that lamentable process whereby, even though the Belfast agreement has not been implemented and so little progress on decommissioning has been made, the Government decided that it is sensible to start offering a whole new set of unreciprocated, unilateral concessions to republicanism in Northern Ireland, and to Sinn Fein-IRA in particular. One of those concessions is the award of special status for Sinn Fein-IRA MPs to come to this place and enjoy some of the facilities of the Palace of Westminster as well as public money, without taking their seats. Other concessions were set out in the Weston Park agreement: for example, the promise of new inquiries and of amnesties for on-the-run terrorists.
	Against that background, it was decided—because the general policy is to go soft on Sinn Fein-IRA—that it would not be nice to tell them to hurry up with decommissioning, and that that would be unfriendly and hostile. It would actually make a demand of them rather than giving them a concession. It is part and parcel of that policy of appeasement—a word I use advisedly, as I fear that is indeed what the policy is—that the Bill sets out a five-year deadline that is difficult to explain on any rational basis.

Hugo Swire: Just before Christmas, we were informed by the Secretary of State that, in the mind of General de Chastelain, decommissioning to date was significant—although we were never told what "significant" actually meant, for reasons that I can understand. If decommissioning to date really has been significant, why do we need to discuss extensions to the process of one, two or five years?

Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend's logic is irrefutable. If "significant" actually meant large progress—[Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary of State wants to intervene, I shall be happy to give way.
	If "significant" means that progress has been so great that a substantial proportion of the ground has already been covered during the past five years—or rather the three and three quarter years since the Belfast agreement—why do we need a further five years? If it is logical to suppose that "significant" means that 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the ground has been covered, we should hardly need five more years to complete the process.
	My hon. Friend touches on an important matter that goes to the heart of the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland in the whole process: the transparency of the process and the extent to which people can follow what is going on. If I catch your eye when we discuss new clause 1, Sir Alan, I hope that we can go into that matter in more detail.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he and his party object to the extension on principle, or is a limited extension acceptable? In that case, we are simply discussing how long the IRA should be given.

Quentin Davies: Strictly speaking, the argument is one of practicality and pragmatism rather than of principle. I tried to make it clear when I began my remarks that there is no difference between us and the Government on the principle that decommissioning is required. It is a good thing and it should be advanced as much as possible. However, there are important differences of judgment between us as to how we can maximise its progress. Those are important issues of practical judgment.
	There is no difference between us as to the desirability of decommissioning or, as I have already made clear, as to support for the Belfast agreement and for the process itself. Decommissioning is an essential part of that. So if the hon. Gentleman has in mind the analogy of Bernard Shaw and the actress, we are just talking about amounts. We are talking about a year or five years, which is the purpose of debating the amendment, but that may make a material difference to the incentives applied to the paramilitary organisations that need to decommission, in relation to the amount of time that they take to carry out that process.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for leading me naturally to the heart of the argumentthere is such a difference of judgment between us, and Conservative Members believe that deadlines are important and that they can influence people. That is true generally; it is true of the way in which the European Union, businesses and many human institutions work. It is certainly true of Northern Ireland's history. No one with even a passing familiarity with its history could deny that deadlines have played an enormously important part in the progress that has been made thereincluding, of course, in negotiating the Belfast agreement.
	We believe that deadlines are in themselves very important factors, but of course they are not the whole story. Other influences, pressures, incentives and disincentives will apply to people, but all other things being equal, we have no doubt that whether deadlines exist and what those deadlines are make a difference. I notice that no Labour Member has sought to intervene to dispute that proposition.
	Let me make a second proposition, to which the Conservative party also holds. It is very simple: shorter deadlines tend to concentrate people's minds. Shorter deadlines tend to make the implementation process shorter; longer deadlines do the opposite. They tend to dissolve any sense of urgency, and they tend to extend the time that people take to complete the tasks to which they are committed. Again, that sounds like a simple proposition, and no Labour Member has sought to catch my eye to contradict it.
	The remarkable thing is that the Secretary of State agrees precisely with the logic of what I am saying. He acknowledged that, perhaps inadvertently, in the House on 17 December. I shall observe the normal courtesy by citing the Hansard column reference. He said:
	I recognise that some say that we need to have deadlines and that without pressure the Provisionals will not move. Some people will point to occasions in the past few years when we have achieved progress only by taking matters right to the wire.
	This is the important part of the quotation. He continued:
	I understand that argument, although I have to say that the Provisionals are not the only people in Northern Ireland who regularly take matters to the wire.[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 49.]
	So the Secretary of State accepts that the Provisionals and other people in Northern Ireland take matters to the wire. I shall give way to him if he contests this interpretation of his words, but it is blatantly clear that the phrase taking matters to the wire simply means that people take advantage of whatever deadlines exist. It follows inexorably that if a deadline is extended, the time people take to complete the task for which the deadline has been set is extended; and if a deadline is reducedall other things being equalthe time they take is reduced.

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman keeps regretting the fact that no Labour Member has leapt up to intervene on the specific points that he makes, but does he accept that I am listening very carefully to him developing his argument, and I hope to address some of those points in responding to this debate? He said earlier that, in principle, there is nothing between us and that we are debating the practicalities of the proposals. Does he also accept that the practicality and usefulness of deadlines per se divide us?

Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for that point, and I shall listen with equal attention to her remarks. I have already saidI totally accept thisthat we are talking about practicalities, but judgment about practicalities is absolutely at the heart of competence and effectiveness in government. It is at the heart of what we should be discussing in the Chamber. We cannot allow the Government unthinkingly to renew the Bill with a five-year deadline because, as I have suggested, there was a five-year deadline before. It is clear to us that a deadline of five years is utterly inappropriate to a process that is already overdue by more than a year and a half.
	In response to the Minister's point, I repeat that we are talking about practicalities and about a judgment as to what is a sensible, businesslike and responsible approach to a vitally important problem. There is the practical issue, which is vital, of the rate of progress of decommissioning and the date on which decommissioning will be complete. I hope that we shall have an opportunity later to focus a little more on that subject. However, there is also the issue of the confidence that is created in the meantime on both sides of the sectarian divide in Northern Irelandconfidence in the reality, integrity and transparency of the process and in the extent to which people can take seriously the prospect of moving to a democracy free from the threat of the gun and Semtex.
	Although such issues are practical, they are enormously important to the peace process as a whole. All the policies that may be devised to achieve peace in Northern Ireland can be brought to naught if we are not extremely careful each time we deal with such a delicate matter as decommissioning and the regime to bring it about. We must be careful to structure the pattern of incentives and disincentives that will be applied to all who have to take part in the most rational and effective fashion.
	I have made it clear that we believe that deadlines are important, and the Government have not contested that. I have made it plain that they have got it quite wrong in allowing another five years and, so far, we have not heard any justification for that. The Minister promises that there will be some justification, and let us hope that that is so. We will listen to what she says. However, at the moment, we are extremely concerned about the whole drift of Government policies and about what we think is an important misjudgment that has been expressed on the face of the Bill. However, it can be corrected and I hope that it will be corrected by the Committee accepting our amendments.
	I have already carefully said that deadlines are important, but they are only one aspect of the process. They are only onealthough an important oneof the pressures that can be applied to ensure that we have earlier and more certain decommissioning and that it is less probable that it will never be completed or will take longer.
	As I said on Second Reading, I believe that it is likely that there will be further acts of decommissioning. I said on that occasionI stand by my judgmentthat there is a reasonable expectation that Sinn Fein, for reasons connected entirely with its prospects in the Irish elections in May, may feel it necessary to make at least a symbolic further act of decommissioning between now and then. There is no doubt that the Americans played an absolutely critical part in securing the act of decommissioning that took place at the end of October, and the timely application of pressure from that quarter may bring about another act of decommissioning at some time.
	Of course, other instruments can be appliedand not necessarily by us. The two instruments that I have just mentioned are a function either of Irish domestic politics or of the policies of the United States Administration. However, it is our responsibility to make sure that the instruments that are in the hands of the British Government and the British Parliament are used most effectively. That is where our concern lies.
	I wish to make a final point about a matter that has concerned me the more in that I think that the Government have not sufficiently recognised a certain danger. It is sensible in life to put oneself in the shoes or, as far as possible, in the mind of a particular opponent or counterpart in any negotiating process. I wonder whether the Government have done that effectively because, in the case of Sinn Fein-IRA, if they had they would realise that there might be reasons for them to decommission, some of which I have mentioned. However, one strong reason, which unfortunately has been greatly strengthened by the Government's recent conduct, for spinning out the process and not completing decommissioning until the Greek calends is that that tactic is an effective way of securing concessions.
	Lamentable though the situation is, far from the British Government being able to put pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA, the fact is that Sinn Fein-IRA sit on their weapons and do not implement their obligations under the Belfast agreement. The Government then go to them and say, Look. There is no progress on Belfast. We are very worried about that. What can we do to increase momentum and help you? Naturally, Sinn Fein-IRA ask for concessions, which the Government give.
	Sinn Fein-IRA still do not decommission, however, or, if they do, it is a minimal act. They wait the maximum amount of time before doing anything else because they expect the Government to offer more concessions. That is the history of the past few monthsof Weston Park and of the lamentable concessions that we made to Sinn Fein-IRA MPs to come here on the basis of special status. I repeat that I would be only too glad if they took their seats on the same basis as everyone else, but that is not want they want to do and not what is happening.
	The Government have sadly got themselves into a position in which they are negotiating in the wrong direction. Instead of using the instruments that are available to them to put pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA, they throw them away, in the same way as they release prisoners willy-nilly despite no progress in decommissioning. The Government then allow Sinn Fein-IRA to turn the tables on them and say, Right. You want more decommissioning? You think that you've already paid for that in the Belfast agreement, but no: we both accept that you've got to make more concessions on top of Belfast. So we would like the next one please. That has been the history of the subterranean negotiations over the past few months between Sinn Fein-IRA and the Government.
	All the public manifestations of those negotiations are regrettable and some of them are discreditable. We have debated them in the House, especially in the two debates before Christmas. I beg the Government, in the interests of Northern Ireland, the peace process and any value that they share with me, to think again and stop this nonsense. They need to start saying to Sinn Fein-IRA, We are sorry. We have an agreement. You must implement it in full before any further concessions are made or before we are prepared to talk about making any further moves on our side.
	I put it to the Government most forcefully, and believe that I am right to do so, that there is no purpose in having an agreement with anyone if the other side is not going to implement it and asks for more concessions before it carries out its share, as outlined in the initial agreement. That is a hopeless way to conduct a negotiation in any context of life. It is especially regrettable and irresponsible when so many important things are at stake, such as people's lives and peace and democracy in a part of our country.
	The matter is not technical, but practical. It relates to a practical judgment about how to conduct a negotiation in such circumstances. It has enormous consequences that will concern everyone in the country and it is important that we get it right. The debate is crucial. We shall all listen with bated breath to the Minister and I hope that even at this eleventh hour she may have had a slight change of mind.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful for the opportunity to consider the issues raised by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). I listened with great interest. His crucial point, which he kindly confirmed in response to my intervention, is that we are considering something that is a matter not of principle, but of practicality. That is a tremendously important and helpful clarification. However, let us bear in mind the fact that the Conservatives pulled out of the cross-party agreement not on a matter of principle, as we now find out, but on a matter of practicality. I find that surprising. In my judgment, a matter of practicality alone does not warrant a response of such enormity.

Quentin Davies: I must intervene, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking my intervention. He has made two important errors. First, the Opposition did not pull out of bipartisanship: the Government walked away from the basis of bipartisanship. That basis was the Belfast agreement and its implementation. When the Government went beyond that and, even before Belfast had been implemented, said that they would start throwing out new unilateral concessions, we said, Wait a moment. You have left the territory on which we stood together. You have withdrawn from Belfast.
	Secondly, as I tried to make clear in my earlier remarks, the matter might be a practical one, but it has the profoundest consequences for the future of the entire process. It is not, therefore, a minor issue, and it would be extremely regrettable if it were considered in that light.

Lembit �pik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and invite him to intervene again if he feels that I have misrepresented his remarks. He says that, in the view of the Conservatives, the Government walked away from the Belfast agreement. Let us be grown up about the matter. It was the hon. Gentleman himself who made an absolutely clear statement that the Conservatives were taking the proactive decision to walk away from the cross-party consensus.
	We had a substantial debate about the way in which that had been reported in the press at the time, but at that time I did not hear the hon. Gentleman questioning my interpretation that the Conservatives were indeed pulling out of the cross-party consensus. If I have misunderstood that, I should be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification. I should be delighted to hear that I have misunderstood, and perhaps that the Minister has also misunderstood the position, and that the Conservatives remain committed to a cross-party consensus.

Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has indeed misunderstood. I shall therefore try again. Our position has not changed. We support the Belfast agreement; we have always supported the Belfast agreement. We believe that it should be implemented. We believe that it is quite wrong, before it has been implemented and before all sides have fulfilled their undertakings under it, to consider further movesfurther concessionsgoing beyond it in favour of any parties to the Belfast agreement.
	When the Government decided to take that course, we said that we could no longer support them. The Government have an opportunity in the debate this afternoon to pull back from that position. I sincerely hope that they will do so and say in future that the Belfast agreement must be implemented, decommissioning must be completed, and only then can we consider any further concessions to any parties to the Belfast agreement which have yet to implement it.
	I cannot make our position clearer than that. It has been clear since the Weston Park agreement, which has never been debated in the House, that the Government were launched on a new course. The first measures that the Government introduced in accordance with their new strategy were those that we debated before Christmas. I made it plain then that we could not support them in that new and irresponsible departure.
	I continue to reiterate that position. I have said the same thingin different ways, admittedlythree or four times in the debate this afternoon. When the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) reads Hansard tomorrow morning, he will know unambiguously where the Opposition stand.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) has managed to provoke two very long interventions. Perhaps we might now narrow in on the specifics of the amendment before the Committee.

Lembit �pik: I certainly wish to focus on the amendments, Sir Alan, and I am grateful for your forbearance as we clarified that point. I believe that it is relevant to the debate, because understanding the Conservatives' motives in supporting the amendments will help me to provide a response to them. However, I shall not dwell on the matter. I shall do as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford says and study Hansard in great detail. I shall conclude from what he said that it was only a partial withdrawal from the cross-party consensus. I am encouraged by that. The hon. Gentleman also said that the amendments had been tabled on a matter of judgment, not on

Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit �pik: I will give way, as the point is so important, but then I must move on.

Quentin Davies: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to use words disingenuously, but when he talks about the Conservative party withdrawing or pulling out, he is implying that the movement or change was made by usfar from it. We have stayed in the same place; it is the Government who have moved.

Lembit �pik: I shall not incur your wrath, Sir Alan, by pursuing that point, but I simply say that it sounds to me that one can be rather more optimistic that the hon. Gentleman, who is by nature a very pleasant and consensual man, is perhaps pulling back from what I incorrectly interpreted last year as withdrawal from the cross-party consensus. That is tremendously encouraging.
	Returning to the issue of principle versus practicality, it strikes me that, as I hope we can agree the hon. Gentleman said, at the core of the debate there is a matter of judgment: whether the proposal in the Act is more or less appropriate than that in the Bill. It all boils down to how long we should enable the amnesty to continue.
	I should from the outset say that the Liberal Democrats feel on balance that it is likely that the Government's proposal will make sense. It is probably helpful to the peace process to extend the amnesty in the way described. Let us remember that even the provisions of the unamended legislation must be debated and approved every year; otherwise the amnesty will fall. Therefore, we are talking about a rather detailed point: whether the opportunity to renew the amnesty should be allowed to continue on an annual basis until 2007 or for a shorter period. For that reason, we need to look at some pragmatic considerations.
	On several occasions when Conservatives have opposed relaxation of provisions and various steps forward, those steps have led to significant progress in the peace initiative. For example, there was great scepticism on the Conservative Benches and expressed by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), about the prospect of any decommissioning, yet it came about. Therefore, as one's judgment on Northern Ireland matters has evidently been flawed in the past, surely one needs to be cautious rather than vitriolic about the certainty with which one objects to the Government's proposals in the present.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he felt short deadlines tended to concentrate the mind, but if they are too short they can become meaningless. For example, the Prime Minister made a mistake in saying that there was no plan B in the Northern Ireland peace process. In fact, when no result was achieved, there turned out to be a plan B and the Government's credibility was slightly harmed by the decision. I suspect that as long as the peace process is moving forward there will always be a plan B, a plan C or a plan D.
	We are not dealing with idiots in northern Irish politics; we are dealing with some of the most sophisticated politicians anywhere in Europe. I am very aware of those sitting on the Benches behind me when I say that, and I hope that they are nodding. [Interruption.] I was of course referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), as well as to those on the Unionist Benches and Democratic Unionist party Members. Let us not pretend that a deadline that is very likely to be extended by any Government who are making progress should be regarded as naive or superficial by those with whom we are dealing.

Andrew Turner: Would the hon. Gentleman care to mention how close it was to the deadline before the IRA took what has been described as a significant move towards decommissioning? I recall that it did so well beyond the deadline.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. There were four deadlines. Each of them was challenged and some fell, while some were exceeded. However, the fact of the matter is that the process continued not because of the deadlines or because those involved were frightened to break them. As he said, we went way past the original deadline. That happened because of internal matters relating to Northern Ireland and external matters relating to 11 September and the terrible own goal that the IRA scored in Colombia. Those matters were outside our control, but within our control was the provision of a sphere of opportunity in which initiatives could be taken if some external or internal matter might prompt them. Incidentally, I should say that Sinn Fein scored a remarkable triumph of public relations in turning that tremendous own goal in Colombia into a public relations success. That underlines the fact that we are dealing with very hard-nosed politicians who understand the game and will not be fooled by superficial deadlines that will be exceeded and have been in the past. There is a precedent of exceeding them not only under the existing Government, but under the previous one.

Hugo Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the remarks that he made in a press release in August last year? He said:
	There does need to be further clarification of the timetable for the decommissioning of IRA weapons.
	Is it the official Liberal Democrat position that the party is satisfied or not satisfied?

Lembit �pik: We are very satisfied that decommissioning has started. As I said, on judgment we conditionally feel satisfied that the Government are putting forward a reasonable agenda specifying a period during which we decide every year whether it is acceptable to proceed with the amnesty. I stress again that this is not a one-off debate between now and 2007. If I understand the Bill correctly, there will be another debate in 12 months, when we must return to the matter, assess what progress has been made and consider the reasonable concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and his colleagues. We are arguing about the best process and various details in that respect.

Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman spoke about hard-nosed politicians and the perception in Northern Ireland. Does he recognise that the slithering that has been going on has caused greater disillusionment among ordinary people in Northern Ireland? Is it not time that they were considered, as well as hard-nosed terrorists?

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter previously on the Floor of the House. He is right, and I was going to deal later with those very reasonable concerns. Unionist politicians in particular have expressed repeatedly in the Chamber and outside exactly the same concerns about disillusionment in the Unionist population. They have been described by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, and no doubt they are shared by all colleagues on the Unionist Benches. The issue needs to be addressed, but I suspect that the Bill in its current form will not help to reassure the Unionist population. Can the Minister of State provide some sort of reassurance that this very salient point will be taken on board? Although I have been criticising the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford in respect of other matters, I know that he has consistently and correctly raised the issue in the Chamber and outside. It is reasonable for the Committee to expect some reassurance from the Minister.
	In the context of a gradual step forward, let us remember what the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said on 22 November 1999, which is a long time ago. Speaking about the Mitchell review, he said:
	The review has not produced a single text like the Good Friday agreement. Instead, it has concentrated on building trust and confidence by means of a number of important steps forward rather than waiting for one giant leap that might never be made.[Official Report, 22 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 345.]
	So, even two years ago we had a Secretary of State who made it clear that a gradual approach was the most likely solution to matters in hand, and I feel that we need to give ourselves the chance to enable that gradual process to move forward.
	I hope that the tragic events of 11 September do not have to be replicated for further movement on decommissioning, but a series of international or national initiatives relating to Northern Ireland either directly or indirectly, in the context of terrorism, may be needed to prompt the process to move forward. The Bill as it stands simply means that we have five years to do that.
	Another point on which I take issue with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is whether we have already had a substantial timewhether five years is a substantial time for decommissioning. Let us remember that we are dealing with an issue that, depending on how we define it, has existed for decades, for almost a century, or for several centuriesone's historical perspective will determine which time scale one chooses. In that context, five years is not a long time. If we look at where we started and where we are now, we realise that those five years have generated more progress than the previous 30 years. That is a reasonable ground on which to give ourselves the space to allow the process to carry on.
	When one thinks about such things, it is always appropriate to ask, What would I do if I were in the position of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? [Interruption.] I hear cheers of approval from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. Clearly he is thinking of defecting, as others have recently donethe door is always open.
	All of us, if we were in that position, would unquestionably start with the idea of outcomes. We would not focus on process, but would try to be clear what we were trying to do in the joband surely that is to secure the peace and to stabilise and normalise the lives of the ordinary people in Northern Ireland. If one concentrates on outcomes, the process is simply a tool, not an end in itself, and I believe that one would end up making pragmatic decisions along the way, not always with everyone's support.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford talked about subterranean goings on at Weston Park. I share his suspicions, and I think, although I am not sure, that there probably have been some informal agreementsperhaps even some talk about extending the amnesty. However, even if those discussions did take place, if, ultimately, they stabilise Northern Ireland and make it a more peaceful place, surely it is the Government's responsibility to take those risks and make those decisions.
	I remind Conservative Members that, to his great eternal credit, when John Major was Prime Minister he was negotiating with the IRA when it was not even on ceasefire. That was a much riskier and more dangerous thing to do in the political context, in terms of the potential for sending signals to terrorists that they could bomb and negotiate at the same time. We must not forget that that initiative, which I personally supported even at the time, was Conservative sponsored.
	I am sure that the Committee is now clear about what the amendments are intended to do, and we all understand that this is simply a debate about timingor rather, not even about timing as such, but about how many times we can come back and discuss whether to extend the 12-month amnesty period again. I would like to think that it will all be over by 2003 or 2005, but I am not confident enough about that to be sure that we do not need the leeway to come back again until 2007.
	For those reasons, and although I respect others' right to differI also recognise the great pressures, to which I have already alluded, on Unionist and Democratic Unionist politicians in particularI think that we have to bite the bullet and recognise that we have been here before, with two Governments of two different colours, and that every time we have made substantial breakthroughs, it has been because somebody on the Government Front Bench has taken a substantial risk.

Harry Barnes: The amendment fails to recognise that things move on in politics, and that new positions are reached. If this were an amendment about a hard and specific deadline, in the context of the past situation, I would often have been associated with such a position. However, because we have passed a previous deadlinewhich, although it changed, was eventually metwe are now in an entirely different situation. There has been an event of considerable significance in the putting beyond use of a number of arms by the IRA. Aspects of a deadline have, therefore, already been metnot, I think, because of the deadline but because of other factors. That helps to change the position. The Government have not moved away from the deadline position, but they have wavered a bit in connection with it. They now support something that could be called a rolling deadline. That allows for avenues of manoeuvre, depending on future developments.
	As the Conservative spokesperson said, the change that led to the putting beyond use of those arms did not come from the pressures of a deadline, but was the result of other political considerations by Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. They were under tremendous pressure from America following the events in Colombia, and then the events of 11 September. They also clearly had in mind the political considerations concerning their standing in the Irish Republic, and whether they were going to be a political force at the coming general election. As the Conservative spokesperson also said, there could be further moves, because they have to try to accommodate themselves within that political situation. They are very hard nosed, politically, and are now willing to advance their own position entirely through the ballot box, if that avenue gives them the better chance, rather than by other means. These matters must be considered when we determine the deadline.

John Baron: I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have indeed moved away from the concept of deadlines, because here we are today, debating a Bill that will allow the deadline to be extended for a further five years. That will lessen the potency of any future deadline, because there is always the risk that if we do not meet that deadline, there will be others to follow. The hon. Gentleman is, therefore, completely wrong: the Government have significantly moved away from the concept of deadlines.

Harry Barnes: I am not completely wrong, because I recognise part of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I said that the Government have moved to what I described as a rolling deadline. Instead of there being a hard, specific deadline, which might in any case have to be changed by subsequent measures, a measure is to be introduced to allow different stages at which the provisions could, perhaps by statutory instrument, be extended in line with the contents of the Bill.
	That is a change, but it has been made because the situation has changed considerably and dramatically. At one time, those of us who were trying to press Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA into some response were desperate. There was nothing we could do except lay down a deadline and say to them, You will see what will happen if you don't conform to that deadline. The Ulster Unionist party challenged them on a number of occasions in connection with that deadline.
	Many of us who proposed that deadline were willing to chance the situation; we were that desperate. We were saying that the situation might break down entirely, and that the whole agreement might go, but we believed that the people who would fail in those circumstances would be Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. They would be condemned for having operated in that way and for not having met the deadline.
	Sinn Fein-IRA have now taken a dramatic step in their history by putting a certain number of arms beyond use. The traditionalist argument of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein has been destroyed. Sinn Fein is involved in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the Parliament in the Irish Republic, and it has taken up accommodation in this House. That is a dramatic change from its previous position. We must consider that situation. We should not jettison the notion of a deadline, but be a bit more accommodating, because other possibilities exist.
	We have learned that the greatest chance of achieving full decommissioning will come from various political pressures being brought to bear. Pressures from the Government, the Irish Republic and the United States are dominant in achieving change. That is why we need the flexibility provided in the Bill, not the amendment, which takes us back to yesterday's position as if nothing had altered.
	Ulster Unionists Members have made important points. There is massive disillusionment in Unionist communities; something must be done in response to those concerns. We must show that action is being taken as forcefully as possible to bring about the decommissioning that people want. Other steps need to be taken to calm the fears in those communities.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and I have tabled early-day motion 616, which refers to exiles. Paramilitaries on the run will not now be chased, but will be allowed to return. If that is on the agenda in the general framework, pressure should be brought to bear to get a response regarding the people who have been placed in exile by organisations such as the IRA and are not allowed in any circumstances to set foot in Northern Ireland for fear of their lives. That should end.
	It is not correct to say that Sinn Fein and the IRA are always being placated. We recently discussed legislation that seeks to tackle the problem of electoral fraud by Sinn Fein: it was directed against that organisation.
	Things change, and pressures can be brought to bear in different directions. I urge Ministers to deal with problems such as the return of exiles, and there are some signs that that is happening, which is welcome. We should not go back to the situation before this significant move took place, which was forced on the Provisional IRA. We should force on that organisation more changes and require it to make more concessions. It should get out of its paramilitary activities entirely and into purely political action. I do not support its present political objectives. We need to tackle the abuses that it is engaged in, such as having a record of where its money has come from when it stands in elections. The money has often come from the most obnoxious sources in America and elsewhere. At least the American Administration have finally come to terms with this issue, and are seeking change.

Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman graciously giving way on that point. The Government brought legislation before the House that let the IRA off the hook as regards declaring financial contributions from elsewhere. Is it not time that the Government and the House started to put pressure on the IRA, rather than leaving it to the Unionist politicians in Northern Ireland or to the American Government?

Harry Barnes: That is a valid point. When we discussed entry into the House and the use of its facilities by Sinn Fein Members, the question of the Register of Members' Interests arose. Should Sinn Fein Members have to adhere to the requirement for MPs to record the source of any substantial contributions they have received for electoral purposes? Perhaps that requirement could be tightened, and used in connection with checking particulars relating to Sinn Fein.
	I am not opposed to the putting of many pressures on the Government to be tougher in many respects, but it should be borne in mind that that sometimes prompts favourable responses. We should accept the gains that are made, and not complain all the time. The amendment returns us to a position that I occupied in the past, but have now departed from. My attitude has changed, because circumstances have changed. The Committee ought to recognise those changes, and I feel that such a recognition is reflected in the position of the Government rather than that of the Opposition.

Andrew Hunter: I listened to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) with great interest, as all Members always do, but I quarrel profoundly with the thesis on which he based his opposition to the amendments. He arguedI think I quote him correctlythat the decommissioning event of last autumn was a significant move forced on the IRA. In a limited sense, the timing was significant because of the significant 11 September dimension; but that, I think, is only part of the argument. We must understand the full argument to understand why the amendments should be supported.
	The hon. Gentleman overlooks one of the consistent strains of the entire so-called peace process: the Provisionals' explanation that they will decommission one day, that decommissioning forms part of the final solution, and that decommissioning will come when the causes of the conflict have been removed. Far from decommissioning being the sort of significant event that the hon. Gentleman might have us consider it, the token event of last autumn was in fact an acknowledgement that so many concessions had been made that, to a significant extent, the causes of the conflict had indeed been removed.
	That brings me to a point also made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). Of course the situation changes; of course there is movement, if we continually make concessions to the men of violence. But the movement that arises from a democracy's giving ground to terrorist intransigence is not, I suggest, a movement of which hon. Members should be particularly proud.
	My speech will be short, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has fully explored the salient points of the argument. I merely want to emphasise one or two of his observations, and I do so with some happiness. I do not always agree with my hon. Friend about the Belfast agreement, but here we are discussing practicalities rather than the fundamental principle, and I think he has analysed those practicalities correctly.
	I believe that the Belfast agreement should have involved a firm decommissioning timetable all along, with consequences for non-observance. I also believe that it should have involved firm links between decommissioning and places on the Executive, and between decommissioning and prisoner release. I agree with my hon. Friend about that.

David Burnside: There was a clear agreement on the total completion of decommissioning by May 2000, strengthened by and linked to the Prime Minister's promise to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)the leader of the Ulster Unionist partyon the day of the Good Friday agreement. That was the only reason why some of us supported the agreement, which would have excluded Sinn Fein from government without decommissioning. It is the failure of Her Majesty's Government to live up to their commitment that has disillusioned the Unionist people.

Andrew Hunter: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. On previous occasions, we have found common ground on that point. It is a fact that the Prime Minister went to Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign and made pledges that plainly misled the people of Northern Ireland into believing that there was that linkagethe commitment that men of violence would not have a part to play in the future governance of the Province.
	The most telling point that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford made was that the potential extension of the amnesty for five years amounts to a surrendering of initiative to the Provisional IRA. The pressure should relentlessly be on the IRA to decommission. Extension of the amnesty period will mean that the pressure is potentially lifted. Instead of the pressure being on the IRA meaningfully to decommission, the Bill presents it with leverage to make further demands in return for more token decommissioning gestures.
	I am reminded of a general prediction. Many commentators anticipate that the next phase of token-gesture decommissioning by the Provisionals may come in the run-up to the Irish general election. I do not know whether that is the case. We will find out in time but the Bill unamended will enable decommissioning before the Irish general election, if it is to happen, to be token, just as it was token last autumn. Pressure is being lifted from the IRA, allowing it leverage to bargain for more concessions in advance of further decommissioning.
	Another point was made by several hon. Members during the Second Reading debate; my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford alluded to it. The Bill unamended gives out entirely the wrong signals. A strong argument for the inclusion of the amendments is that those false signals will be corrected. False signal number one goes to the terrorists. It confirms that they can buy more time through procrastination, deviousness and orchestrated delays. It is telling them that they need do nothing until February 2007. I recall the words of my hon. Friend on Second Reading, who said that it is as though we are saying,
	Relax. Take your time. You are not up against a deadline.[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 53.]
	The concept of extending a deadline to speed up decommissioning is manifestly absurd.
	The second wrong signal goes out to the law-abiding majority of Northern Ireland. The Bill without these amendments is effectively saying that to all intents and purposes decommissioning is open ended. In particular, it is saying that decommissioning is being moved further and further down the agenda. Indeed, implicitly it is acknowledging that it may never happen.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said that he thought that the Government were being sucked into a modified position, retreating from such demands as there are in the Belfast agreement. I am not sure that I share that interpretation. Moving the decommissioning issue down the agenda has all along been the Government's intention. It appears to have been one of the assurances that the Prime Minister gave to the Provisionals soon after the 1997 general election, because it was one of their demands for imposing a second qualified ceasefire. According to some republican sources, the assurance that decommissioning would be pushed further down the agenda was given to Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Adams shortly before last month's Second Reading debate.
	I argue, along with my hon. Friends, that it is wholly wrong for the Bill to be allowed to proceed with such a diluted, lax timetable and without a more demanding deadline. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said, it is a fact of life that deadlines focus attention and clarify positions. The Government are surrendering a strong, almost moral high ground on decommissioning by not accepting the amendments. I strongly support the amendments.

David Burnside: I wish to support the amendments. This issue goes far wider than pragmatism and extending the deadline for a while because the legal requirement is that the terrorists must be allowed to decommission. That was the basis of the Good Friday agreementto move the terrorists to democracy and, one hopes, some time in the future, even to this place.
	I am totally disillusioned with this process and give the Government no credibility whatever because the word deadline should be banned from Northern Ireland political vocabulary.

Jane Kennedy: indicated assent

David Burnside: The Minister nods, but she nods for the wrong reason. The word should be banned because it is a joke in Northern Ireland political vocabulary. Politics should be about defeating the opposition. We must think about what is in the minds of Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams, Gerry Kelly and the rest of the Army Council of the Provisional IRA. What do they want? What message do they want from this House today? I shall tell hon. Members what they want: they want the same message that they have received ever since the Good Friday agreement was signedappeasement, appeasement, appeasement, and list after list of further concessions to republicans. That is what they have got and what they will get. Some concessions we know about and some we do not; some were made in Weston Park and some, perhaps, were not. What else is there?
	The deadline is an important matter of principle and pragmatism. The two are wrapped up together. The reason why people like me, who supported the agreement within the Ulster Unionist party, are so disillusioned with that agreement and its implementation is that the deadlines mean nothing. As I said in an earlier intervention, the May deadline meant nothing; the Provos could get away with it. The loyalist paramilitaries are all up at Stormont and the electoral system was bent in the Assembly to allow more people to get electedthere are so many at Stormont that I do not even know how many there are.
	Her Majesty's Government are bending the system, appeasing the terroriststhe men of violence, the gunmen and bombers who hold on to their arms and ammunitionand not putting deadlines on them. What sort of signal is coming from this House?
	I do not really want to support the Opposition's amendment of a one-year deadline, because the deadline should have been May 2000 and sanctions should have been brought against those who were not adhering to the agreement. The Prime Minister promised my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the terrorists would be excluded from government until they had totally decommissioned and we had reached the end of the process. Instead, we have had a token symbol to keep the United States on side or to get over the home goal of FARC in Colombia.
	The Unionist people have been seriously let down. The Government had better think about symbols and the message that they are sending from this House. The Secretary of State should realise very soon that, because of the use of deadlines, the abuse of the English language and the fact that deadlines have not been adhered to, the UnionistsI was among the 50-plus per cent. who voted for the agreementare disillusioned. It is one-side terrorism.

Roy Beggs: Will my hon. Friend concede that while we have no reason to have any confidence in the deadlines set by the Government, who have been seen to roll over at every hurdle and make further concessions, we have good reason to have confidence in any deadlines set by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party?

David Burnside: That is a double-edged question for me. My hon. Friend makes a good point and the disillusionment is felt because of the lack of commitment and adherence to the promises. We thought that with a new Prime Minister those commitments would be adhered to, but they were not, and that was why my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was forced into setting deadlines when that should have been the responsibility of the Government. It should be the Government against the terrorists in the United Kingdom.

David Trimble: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I resort to my normal pettifogging and say that I am a little uncomfortable with the word forced. I regrettably found it necessary to do something about setting deadlines and I may find it necessary again, but I am at pains to point out to my hon. Friend that I never felt forced to do it.

David Burnside: Within the Province, under the Mitchell principles, we still have a fully armedwe do not know what the first, token act of decommissioning consisted ofProvisional IRA, and the other republican organisations, and the loyalist paramilitary organisations, both front and back ones, under different names, remain fully armed. The Bill and the amendments are trying to achieve an admirable outcometo take the illegal guns out of Ulster politicsbut in the process and by having no deadlines, we are ending up with the opposite result.
	All the concessions are being made, including those on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We talk about law and order, but why are we running down the numbers in the RUC and reducing the effectiveness of the special branch? We will see in March what will happen to the RUC reserve, but Ulster needs to retain the men and women of the reserve, because of the increase in crime and the continuing threat of terrorism. We will see if pragmatism or principle holds sway, but I suspect that another concession will be made and the RUC reserve will be given away.

Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend recognise that even the discovery of the activities in Colombia stemmed from the work of the RUC special branch? It is time that those in the House and elsewhere recognised that the continued weakening of the special branch constitutes a danger to this nation and threatens the countering of international terrorism throughout the world.

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) will not pursue that matter further, because it is outside the scope of the amendment.

David Burnside: The deadline is a principle that sends out a message, and the symbol of the message is important in achieving the objective of decommissioning. If the Government say five years rather than one year, they might as well say to the end of time, because a five-year deadline puts no pressure on Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein. In the May elections, we can be sure that if pragmatic Fianna Fail and Bertie Ahern need the numbers to make up a coalition Government, they will do a deal with Sinn Fein, and forget about the Irish constitution and one army within a state. Bertie Ahern will do a deal because he wants power.
	My argument is about the symbolism involved in not accepting the tighter deadlines in the amendments. More concessions to the republicans in Northern Ireland are coming up. They were promised inquiries at Weston Park. They have the Bloody Sunday inquiry, and even the Bloody Sunday movies are being financed out of public funds by the British state. That is a bloody disgrace.
	The republicans will expectand will receivemore concessions from the Government. I am very sceptical about the process and the agreement. The confidence of the Unionist people is being destroyed. It is no good having a process if it does not have the consent of both the majority and the minority in Northern Ireland. Unless the amendment is accepted, the symbolic message emanating from this House through this Bill will be that decommissioning does not matter and that people should forget about what has become just another a wee symbol. The general will be able to go back to Canada for a while, but perhaps he will return in the summer.
	We will not be told about it, but security will be run down. There will be a further weakening in police morale, and a reduction in the security that we need to cope with the increase in crime and with the sectarian violence practised by both the loyalist paramilitariesdisgracefullyand the republican paramilitaries, some of whom masquerade under front organisations. That is the way of politics and terrorism in Northern Ireland.
	The House must not send out the wrong message. The Government should take a stand. A five-year deadline means nothing, except that the deadline is a joke. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.

Crispin Blunt: I rise to speak to amendment No. 2. It offers an alternative to amendment No. 1, and its purpose is to give the Government yet another opportunity to send out a signal to those who bear arms that is much more robust than the signal contained in the Bill.
	Our problem is that amendment No. 1 is unlikely to be accepted by the Government, given the tone of their approach on Second Reading. It would be a wonderful surprise if the Minister, when she responds to the debate, were to say that she was going to accept amendment No. 1 and the message that that proposal would send out to those who illegally bear arms in Northern Ireland. However, it is just possible that the Government will not be convinced by our arguments on amendment No. 1, so we have tabled amendment No. 2 as an alternative strategy.
	Amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment, and it deals with the signals being sent out by the Bill. It represents an attempt to deal with the problems already described by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and others. The context for the debate is that the signals sent out to the Unionist community and Sinn Fein-IRA are contradictory. The treatment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is also part of that context, as are the proposals in the already published Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill referring to the symbology of the Crown and the state in the future of Northern Ireland, and to the oaths that judges will take.
	The Secretary of State has also spoken of there being a cold house for Unionists, so it is clear that one set of signals is being sent to the Unionist community, and quite another to Sinn Fein-IRA. Amendment No. 2 would offer the Government a mechanism for sending a more robust signal. The Government's signals about resistance to terrorism, as contained in the Bill, are distinctly uncertain, as are the signals from the Liberal Democrats. That is best summed up by the way in which Liberal Democrat Members voted on whether the House's facilities should be opened up to Sinn Fein Members. Fourteen Liberal Democrat Members voted for the measure, 14 voted against it, and 24 abstained.

Lembit �pik: I am glad to have the chance to point out that Liberal Democrat Members enjoyed a genuinely free vote on that occasion. In contrast, the Conservatives, by their own admission, imposed a three-line Whip. That is the difference between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives.

Crispin Blunt: I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. We had a free voteit just happened that the Conservative party was united in its attitude towards people who are associated with a terrorist organisation having special treatment in the House and whether there should be one rule for one type of MP and one for another. However, a most uncertain sound, as usual, issued forth from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	What a contrast there is between the signals sent to Sinn Fein by the Liberal Democrats and the Government and those sent by the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Only this weekend, the Justice Minister of the Republic, Mr. John O'Donoghue, one of the most senior figures in Mr. Ahern's coalition Cabinet, reinforced the Taoiseach's remarks about Sinn Fein. He said that Sinn Fein had links with an illegal army and stressed:
	It is entirely inconceivable that one would have a party in government that has access to serious matters dealing with security and defence while they were associated with a private army.
	There can be only one army and police in any sovereign democracy.
	That is the attitude of Fianna Fail and the Irish Government toward Sinn Fein and any prospect of its being involved in a coalition.
	The Irish establishment, in the form of The Irish Times, commented in forceful terms in an editorial yesterday about the questions that Mr. Martin Ferris, a would-be Sinn Fein Dail deputy, posed about possible Sinn Fein participation in the next Irish Government. The Irish Times says that Mr. Ferris's questions
	are largely rhetorical. The arrangements in the Executive would not be acceptable in the Republic. What Sinn Fin will have to understand is that they are not acceptable in the long term either in Northern Ireland. If IRA decommissioning is not completed and if the new police service is not accepted across the community, the Belfast Agreement will fall, in time. Sinn Fin will hold no ministries because Northern Ireland will have reverted to direct rule. Sinn Fin ministers will not sit on North-South ministerial councils because they will not exist.
	If it is Mr. Ferris's hope or anticipation that the Government of this State will operate to the compromises which have been applied in order to allow Sinn Fin to participate in the Executive, he is profoundly mistaken. There will be some ambiguity in certain Fianna Fil quarters about this. Fianna Fil will be keenly seeking Sinn Fin transfers in certain constituencies. Meanwhile, the possibility of a Fianna Fil-led Government supported externally by Sinn Finbut without Sinn Fin participationis not a mathematical impossibility and is quietly spoken of by some strategists.
	The Irish Times concludes
	But Sinn Fin's ambivalence between democracy and violence would render even this an appalling and unacceptable vista. If Sinn Fin wants a share of power in this State, it has work to do. It has to choose finally, irrevocably and completely between the armed strugglein any guiseand politics.
	That is the message being sent in the Irish Republic. One would hope that the Government were sending this clear message in the Bill, but the reverse is true. It is in the hope of sending a more robust signal than the one being sent by Her Majesty's Government in the Bill that amendment No. 2 offers the Government a different approach.
	The objective of amendment No. 2 is to enable the Government to distinguish between different classes of weapons in the amnesty legislationthe Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997in respect of the timetable that applies to the items listed in its schedule. The amendment distinguishes between firearms and explosives. It proposes a three-year extension of the amnesty in respect of firearms but only a one-year extension in respect of explosives and the other provisions referred to in the 1997 Act. That proposal is being made in the light of the amount of weapons and explosives held in Northern Ireland by the IRA and the loyalist terror groups.
	According to the best guess of informed commentators, the IRA holds about 1,000 assault rifles, mainly AK47s. It still has most of the 150 tonnes of weapons obtained from Libya between 1985 and 1986. That included six tonnes of Semtex explosive, of which about half appears to have been used or to have been seized by the security forcesleaving about three tonnes in the hands of the Provisional IRA or the Real IRA.
	It is also possible that the IRA has surface-to-air missiles, as well as important electronic equipment and detonation devices to set off large explosives, such as main bombs, and incendiary devices. The IRA has the equipment for portable factories to make incendiary devices and the time-power units that enable those weapons to be effective. The IRA still has the capacity for, and probably still possesses, 17 types of mortar for use against different targets.
	The inventory held by the IRAReal and the Provisionalsits against the loyalist stock of weapons: 200 AK47s, 90 nine mm Browning pistols, 10 RPG7 rocket launchers and 150 warheads for them, and 450 grenades. Those details were put into the public domain by The Irish Times based on information about the hoard of weapons in loyalist hands in 1988. It is believed that loyalist terrorists subsequently came into the possession of Uzi submachine guns and more AK47s, handguns and grenades.

Hugh Robertson: That is a pretty impressive arsenal by any standards. Can my hon. Friend confirm that those weapons can be directly traced to the IRA? Are there further weapons belonging to dissident republican groups?

Crispin Blunt: I have been attempting to point out that that information was published in newspapers whose journalists have followed those events for a long time. However, they do not know precisely who holds whatany more than I, or indeed the Government, know. What we know is that all the various terrorist organisationsloyalist and republicanhold large amounts of substantial weaponry.
	The IRA is known to have obtained 150 tonnes of weapons from Colonel Gaddafi in the 1980s. Some of those weapons go far beyond the IRA's requirements for the low-level terrorism that it has been carrying out, so what sort of low-level artillery piecessuch as surface- to-air missiles or light artilleryare available to the IRA? We do not know.

Hugh Robertson: There is considerable evidence that in the late 1990s the dissident republican groups were actively touting for arms throughout the Balkans, especially in Croatia. Does my hon. Friend agree that the positiondire as it seemscould be even worse?

Crispin Blunt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I acknowledge his expertise in that matter. Like several of my hon. Friends, he served in Northern Ireland and the House should listen carefully to his comments.
	It is important that we remove from circulation weapons such as M60 machine guns, 0.5 in calibre machine guns used to fire on helicopters, and surface- to-air missiles that do enormous damage and can take out aircraft and helicopters carrying large numbers of people. We must also take out of circulation, as soon as possible, the explosives held by the terrorist organisations. That is what the amendment would serve to do.
	The amendment would give the Government a vehicle whereby they could make a distinction between small arms and explosives.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way, especially as he seemed to be about to mention a hypothetical air force, navy and possibly even submarine fleet. So to try to bring him back to earth a little, may I ask him whether he agrees about two factsfirst, that Northern Ireland has the highest percentage of legally held weapons of any part of the United Kingdom and, secondly, that when lunatic terrorists tried to blow the heart out of my home borough, Ealing, in August 2001, they did not do so with RPG7s or kalashnikovs, but with fertiliser, sugar, diesel and a crude detonation device?

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but some of his remarks are unworthy. I was not about to suggest that the IRA has a navy or an air force. That is just absurd. We are trying to identify precisely what weapons the IRA has and what capability is available to it if it chooses to use it. Of course, the difficulty for the Government and all of us in approaching this issue is that the division between the Provisional IRA and the Real IRA, no doubt, alters, and people move, with their weapons and equipment, between the organisations, depending on the politics of the situation.
	As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, we must always remember that the Provisional IRA is a terrorist organisation that is on ceasefire. As soon as it ceases to be on ceasefirea decision that it can take at any moment of its choosingall those weapons will be available to it. If the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein, which are one and the same outfit, want to be taken seriously, they have to start taking all their weapons out of circulation as soon as conceivably possible. The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to give the Government a vehicle so that they can say that holding serious weapons is completely unacceptable and that there will not be an amnesty for ever and a day involving certain weapons.
	I accept that amendment No. 2 can be improved. It represents an attempt to provide the Government with a set of ideas for a different way to approach this issue and to send out the signal, which we are anxious to do, that we must be robust with the people who illegally hold weapons. There may be difficulties with amendment No. 2, because it would extend the amnesty only in relation to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, and a one-year deadline would be applied to the offences listed in the schedule to the 1997 Act.
	One of the offences listed in the schedule is that included in section 10(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. I have a list of 322 possible offenders under that section, which is headed, Contributions to resources of proscribed organisations and states:
	A person is guilty of an offence if he . . . gives, lends or otherwise makes available . . . whether for consideration or not, any money or other property for the benefit of such an organisation.
	Of course, the IRA is a proscribed organisation, and there is a pretty clear relationship between the IRA and Sinn Fein. I wonder what 322 Members were doing on 18 December, when they voted to give resources to Sinn Fein.
	Section 10(2) of the 1989 Act states:
	In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1)(b) above it is a defence to prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the money or property was for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
	We had an interesting debate on Second Reading about the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA. At the conclusion of that debate, one can have been in no doubt at all that even the Government accepted that there was an inextricable link between Sinn Fein and the IRA. Hon. Members appear not to have made any declarations of interest today in proposing the amnesty in relation to this provision, given their record on 18 December. They will have to live with that, but I wonder whether they should have declared such an interest.
	To summarise, the purpose of amendment No. 2 is to provide the Government with another method to send the message that democrats' toleration of terrorists is limited and that the existence of armed groups cannot be permanently tolerated. The more substantial the weaponry, the less should be our toleration and patience.
	The amendment can no doubt be improved upon, and that is why it was tabled as a probing amendment. However, its approach would give the Government another chance to say to terrorist organisations that, as far as decommissioning is concerned, it must not be business as usual for ever and a day.

Peter Robinson: I regret that I have to begin by dealing with some of the attempted revisionism of recent events by pro-agreement Unionists. I noticed particularly in interventions on the speech of the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) the suggestion that all the ills that now face our society and the necessity for a Bill such as the one before us have come about because, in some way, the Prime Minister deceived the people of Northern Ireland and because the IRA have not delivered on the deals into which it entered. However, politicians cannot use those reasons to explain sufficiently to the people of Northern Ireland the bad judgment that they exercised previously when they considered this issue.
	We face the dilemma that we do with the Bill because the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) entered into a poor agreement with bad people. He should have known, as all the rest of us in Northern Ireland who opposed the agreement knew, that we could not trust the Provisional IRA. He should have known, as the rest of us in Northern Ireland who opposed the Belfast agreement knew, that we should not take the word of the Prime Minister on issues that could not clearly be substantiated in the text of the Belfast agreement. Let us therefore be clear that we face this dilemma because an agreement was reached that was never going to be delivered by the Provisional IRA and that it does not intend to deliver even now.
	Let us stand back slightly from the technicalities that some on the Government Benches would have us address, and consider the wider issue involved. We could merely consider the legislationand who could be against a Bill coming to the House to enable decommissioning to take place? The Government could rightly ask the House whether it wanted decommissioning in Northern Ireland to take place, and everyone would say, Yes, of course we do. The Government would then be entitled to say, If you want it, we must have provision in legislation to allow it to happen. The Government therefore introduced this Bill. However, when one stands back, one recognises that it is only part of the jigsaw and that decommissioning is an essential part of an overall process. Only then does one begin to address the key issue.
	The facts are these. Irrespective of whether the Government accept the Conservative amendment or whether the Committee supports it, the reality is that the Provisional IRA will not decommission its weapons.

David Trimble: You were wrong before.

Peter Robinson: I have been right all along on this issue, and the right hon. Gentleman, who says that we were wrong before, is still incapable of telling the House what the IRA have decommissioned, where its programme for decommissioning is and when it will next decommission anything. He cannot do that because neither he nor anyone else knows if and when that will happen. If justice is to be done and is seen to be done, decommissioning needs to happen and needs to be seen to have happened. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to take the word of the Provisional IRA, I am not; nor, indeed, are the people of Northern Ireland whom I represent.
	What is required is not simply a timetable but a sanction. However, there is no sanction in the Bill or in the amendment. The only sanction that is meaningful is the exclusion from government of the Provisional IRA's representatives. That sanction is in the hands not of the Committee nor of the Government, but in those of members of the Ulster Unionist party in the Government in the Northern Ireland Assembly. They have the sanction, but were prepared to act on it only temporarily when they had to face the people in an election.
	The Government are, of course, entitled to put whatever length of time they like in their legislation, but the Opposition are right: the deadline is a farce. The very fact that it is being extended shows that it is not a deadline. We have the strange concept, delivered with a straight face by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), of a rolling deadline. Has he really not considered his words? How on earth can we have a rolling deadline? It is a contradiction in terms. If it is rolling, it is not a deadline, but a rolling deadline is precisely what the Government have, and year by year it will go on. They will introduce another piece of legislation in five years' time and, with clean hands, say, Well, we need to give the Provisional IRA the opportunity to decommission should it wish to do so.
	The matter is not technical. It is important, and not simply for practical purposes, because it is a matter of principle. We are discussing whether it is proper for people who are to be part of the democratic process to have at their beck and call an army with a stockpile of weapons that they can use. That is the issue that we are to address. I guarantee that if I were to ask every individual in the Committee whether it is proper that the IRA should have such weaponry, they would say, No. There should be decommissioning, and if there should be decommissioning, the obvious question is whether there should be consequences if it is not forthcoming.

Jane Kennedy: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not simply a question for the IRA? It is also a question for loyalist organisations and other republican organisations that retain illegal weapons. It is a question for all who are engaged in violence and the threat of violence. It is for all those organisations to consider their position and for all those engaged in the peace process to use their influence to bring about disarmament and decommissioning.

Peter Robinson: Of course the issue of handing over illegal weaponry is relevant to any organisation that holds them. It is especially important in relation to the Provisional IRA because it, and it alone, can exercise authority in government. A member of the IRA's army council exercises authority as a Minister of Education in the Government of Northern Ireland. That does not happen in relation to the loyalist paramilitary organisations. However, the principle of handing over illegal weaponry applies to all organisations that hold them. They should do that and there should be consequences if they do not, whether republican or loyalist organisations.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made one of his best speeches. I do not agree with his support for the Belfast agreement, but his reference to the Provisional IRA's likely attitude to deadlines is spot on. He understands that much better than the Government do. Were we to put legislation through the House and tell the IRA, You've got five years to decommission, it would not do that next week or next year. It would wait until the deadline when it could extract concessions from the Government before making another contribution that was as meaningless and token, and as much of a stunt and a sham, as its previous gesture; and the Government would herald it as a great advance of the peace process. The Provisional IRA will do that, with the Government making a further open concession the day after, just as they have done before.
	I have no stomach for the play acting on the number of days, weeks or years of any deadline, because the Provisional IRA will use and abuse any deadline it is offered. The Committee needs to exercise its mind on what sanction it has against those who do not decommission. The Secretary of State has the power under existing legislation to advance to the Northern Ireland Assembly a requirement for the Speaker of that Assembly to put a motion before it for the exclusion of Sinn Fein-IRA, on the basis that decommissioning has not taken place in accordance with the legislation. He should do that immediately. Only that kind of sanction is likely to work and bring about decommissioning by the Provisional IRA.

Andrew Robathan: Just about everything that needs to be said about this group of amendments has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and others of my hon. Friends, so I shall not detain the Committee unnecessarily long.
	All of us have been faced, although we may not have known it, with a deadline of 31 January. That deadline is for our tax returns. I have been doing mine this week, and I hope that all hon. Members have submitted their tax returns, or that their accountants are preparing to do so; otherwise there is a sanction. The sanction is a 100 fine. It is automatic and we all know about it. Of course, 100 is not as much money as it used to be, but it is still a reasonable sum. For that reason, I was determined to send in my tax return on time.
	That is the point about deadlines: they put on pressure. If one does not accept the deadline, there is a sanction. It is straightforward. If one does not submit a tax return by the end of February, I understand that 5 per cent. interest is charged on the sum owing. All hon. Members should note that, and more importantly, should note the lesson. It is vital that the point of a deadline be understood. [Interruption.]

Frank Field: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) is off to do his tax return.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is indeed rushing off to do his tax return, late.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford observed, the Bill completely changes the Belfast agreement. The Minister will be familiar with the paragraph in the agreement that allows two years for decommissioning, which ran out in May 2000, as I recall. The Bill reneges on the Belfast agreement. The Minister shakes her head. Perhaps she wishes to intervene to explain why that is not the case.
	The Belfast agreement allowed two years, yet the Bill extends that period, possibly by another five years. What is that if not changingreneging onthe Belfast agreement? Those of us who, with a certain amount of unhappiness, supported the Belfast agreement as the best way forward for peace are greatly saddened that the history of the agreement, particularly since May 2000 but before then as well, has been one of appeasement and concession after concession to one side.
	The Minister should show a little embarrassment or even shame. It is a great tragedy. As we heard, people who did not want to support the Belfast agreement were encouraged to vote for it in Belfast. I know many Northern Ireland people who voted for it and who are now embarrassed that they encouraged others to do so. They are disenchanted and feel lost. Only this week, I received a letter from a great friend there who says that the position is appalling. The crime that is taking place in Northern Ireland is that we are conceding and appeasing. I tell the Minister, in sorrow rather than in anger, that the Bill is an embarrassment. The Government should be ashamed, as should the media, which do not report the matter sufficiently well.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are consistently undermining the Belfast agreement by conceding time after time? In May 2000 the IRA said that it was ready to decommission its arms. Now that it has had concession after concession over the ensuing period, surely it is for the IRA to explain why it is not happy to do what it originally undertook to do. It is not for the Government to respond in advance and always on the back foot.

Andrew Robathan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government repeatedly give way, having received nothing in return, except a few arms which are described as significant and which were handed in or destroyed in some manner. We can discuss till the cows come home how important X number of Armalites is, but the truth is that there has been concession after concession. That is appeasement, in anyone's book.
	Loyalist terrorists are also covered by the extension of the deadline. Loyalist terrorism is a serious problem. It is exactly as bad to be shot, knee-capped or beaten up by a loyalist terrorist as by a republican terrorist. The truth is, however, that they are less significant, and the Government know that.
	First, loyalist terrorists do not form part of the Administration in Northern Ireland. Secondly, from when I was involved in such matters I know that they are pretty much infiltrated by intelligence and security forces in a way that, very understandably, the republicans are not. Thirdly, loyalist terrorism is essentially reactive. Loyalist terrorists exist because the IRA exists. They are just a bunch of unpleasant thugs who are probably more interested in criminality than politics. They are not significant players, and to keep harping on about loyalist terrorism is a diversion.

Lembit �pik: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that loyalist paramilitaries direct a huge amount of activity at the nationalist community, and that for that reason it is very much in our interests to give them the space to decommission as wellif only we can get them to do so?

Andrew Robathan: I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who made a speech with one foot on each side of the fence, as usual sitting neatly on it before jumping off and leaping to the Government's defence and then into bed with them. Loyalist terrorists, like everybody else, should have decommissioned their weapons already. That was the point of the Belfast agreement. The hon. Gentleman might care to read it. Indeed, half of them are not now even on ceasefire; the Government have said that it is not recognised. I want an equal crackdown on the thugs who are so-called loyalist terrorists and the thugs who are republican terrorists.
	I turn to the subject of dissident republicans, who are also covered by the extension of the deadline, which raises a certain disingenuity. The IRA terrorist movement is fairly fluid. It would be interesting to know what information and intelligence the Government have about how many people in the so-called Real IRA or Continuity IRA drift in and out of Provisional IRA discussions. That is not as clear cut as anybody would try to pretend. It certainly seems to me that the groups are moving among each other.
	I am certain that members of the IRA, including Martin McGuinness and others, will know the players in the Real/Continuity IRA and what they are doing. It would be extraordinary if they did not, having grown up and worked with them for 20 years. I am sure that Government intelligence would confirm thateven though we continue the fiction that dissident republicans are entirely separate and form organisations totally different from the Provisional IRA. Such groups may disagree with the Provisional IRA, but they are pretty close to them in many other ways.
	The lack of a deadline has also led to a rise in support for more extreme parties. I do not want to upset the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but he illustrates the fact that his view is much more no surrender than that we must reach some pragmatic agreement, which we must if we are to achieve peaceand God willing we will. Much more important than the rise of the Democratic Unionist party vote at the election at the expense of some of the official Ulster Unionists was the rise in the Sinn Fein vote at the expense of the sensible, moderate, nationalist Catholicwhatever one likes to call itvote.
	People turned from the Social Democratic and Labour party to Sinn Fein, which is inextricably linked to the IRA. Part of that is the Government's responsibility because Sinn Fein have shown that it can deliver, stand up to the British Government and get what it wants. It can stick with the fiction of being removed from violence but get what it wants, carrying an Armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other.
	I would have thought that everybody in the Committee, including the Minister, would be greatly distressed at the fact that an enormous number of perfectly decent people in Northern Ireland are now prepared to put a cross against Sinn Fein on the ballot paper. I am sure that most of them are perfectly decent and could explain why they did so were they here, but it is largely because the Government have given Sinn Fein such credibility.
	I should like to ask one more thing about the extension of the amnesty, and perhaps the Minister might address it too. What further plans do the Government have to extend the amnesty to Irish terrorists who have committed crimes on the mainland but may not yet have been charged, identified, accused or convicted? Will the amnesty be extended to become all embracing in relation to all such people, including those who were responsible for the Canary Wharf and Bishopsgate bombs? I care about that and I think that most people in London care. Perhaps when the matter comes a bit closer to home, people in London and England as a whole might care a little more about what happens in Northern Ireland.
	I have spoken for quite long enough, but I should like to say that a deadline must be a deadline. One of my colleagues suggested that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) was talking about a roll-over deadline. That is what it has been. Nothing has happened and it has meant nothing.

Harry Barnes: Two comments have been made about the term rolling deadline, which was obviously produced as a paradox and was part of the general analysis in which I was engaged. With regard to people who have only simple-minded, yah-boo views on the matter, what I was saying goes well beyond such views, as it does in respect of the two hon. Members who have referred to the issue.

Andrew Robathan: If one has a deadline, one has a deadline. One can roll it around as much as one likes. The hon. Gentleman is not a fool, but neither am I, and I reckoned that a deadline of two years up to May 2000 was exactly that: a deadline. We have now reached January 2002 and we are looking at five more years.
	The lesson that the Government have not learned is that the end does not justify the means. We want to see peace in Northern Ireland, but extending the amnesty deadline will not ensure it and will only be further appeasement for the thugs and terrorists who do not want to see peace in Northern Ireland unless they are in charge of the place.

John Baron: As one of those who has served in Northern IrelandI did so as a platoon commanderand having seen at first hand the atrocities caused by terrorists, I firmly believe that the Bill in its unamended form is a big mistake. Nobody is keener than me for the peace process to succeed, but the Bill, which allows paramilitaries up to a further five years to meet their decommissioning obligations under the Belfast agreement, is completely wrong as it sends out the wrong signals to the various terrorist and paramilitary organisations.
	Decommissioning is the one element of the Belfast agreement that is lagging behind very badly. To suggest through the Bill that terrorist organisations can take their timeindeed, it says that they can have another five yearswill not help the agreement's chances of succeeding. I hold that view for two reasons. First, the Bill will reinforce the feeling among Unionists that this is a one-way processa point to which the hon. Member for NorthEast Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) alludedand will generate problems for the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party and the Assembly in general. Secondly, the Bill also does not help the Belfast agreement because it delays one of the key ingredients that is essential to its successdecommissioning. Rather than speeding up decommissioning, the Bill has the opposite effect and will slow it down.
	The Secretary of State and the Minister will know that there is a habit in Northern Ireland of taking everything to the wire. In other words, as anyone who has been to Northern Ireland knows, giving terrorists another five years means that they will take another five years without thinking about it. Sinn Fein-IRA are dragging their feet because that increases pressure on the British Government. The Government are allowing that to happen, which is plain for the world to seeexcept, of course, the Government themselves.
	Meanwhile, the people of the Province continue to suffer. Violent riots continue while the paramilitary beatings, maimings and murders carry on. We are even building new walls in Belfast, while there has been no further progress on decommissioning. All that puts a tremendous strain on the Army, which is caught in no man's land, where a peace process is allegedly making progress while the violence continues unabated. It is not as though the other parties to the agreement have not kept their side of the bargain. The UUP was prepared to share government with Sinn Fein-IRA; the Irish Government have changed their constitution; and the British Government have legislated for devolved government. Meanwhile, the terrorist prisoners were released within a two-year time frame, which was not part of the agreement, in the hope that decommissioning would also follow within two years.
	The Conservatives tried to link prisoner releases with decommissioning, through amendments to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill in 1998, but we were defeated by the Government.
	Sinn Fein-IRA are now holding up the Belfast agreement by refusing to decommission totally, and all that the Government can do by way of response is to give them another five years. That is a shameful policy, and betrays both the good intentions of those who have served in Northern Ireland and, above all, the people themselves.
	As a country, we send troops to Macedonia to disarm warring factions, yet we cannot disarm terrorists in our own country. We have, rightly, played a leading role in putting together a globally co-ordinated fight against terrorism following the atrocities of 11 September, yet we bend the knee to terrorists in our own back yard.
	The time has now come for Sinn Fein-IRA to deliver on their promises about decommissioning, and for the Government to ensure that they do so. That is why I support the amendments.

Jane Kennedy: I would like to take the opportunity to offer my personal good wishes for the new year to you, Mrs. Heal, and to all hon. Members. Sadly, for hon. Members who are engaged in this debate, with their particular interest in Northern Ireland, the new year has not started as we would have wished, because I should report to the Committee that there has been further trouble, which I understand is still continuing, at the Holy Cross school in Ardoyne. Obviously, we in the Chamber do not have the full details, but I understand that so far two police officers have been injured.
	May I test your patience, Mrs. Heal, and invite hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen to join me in appealing for calm, and saying that, as we have witnessed in the past, confrontation and violence do not help to resolve such problems? Dialogue is the only way of resolving the grievances felt on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland.
	I pay tribute to the work that the officials of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have put into resolving some of the grievances, and to my own officials, too. Let us not allow the children to be made victims again, and have to endure unnecessary trauma because of the failure of adults to live peacefully together. Those comments are entirely outwith the context of the debate, but they serve to remind us of the seriousness of the issues that we are dealing with.
	This has been a good and interesting debate, which has centred on the principle of deadlines. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) rightly reminded us of the importance of the language that we use and how we use it, and at the beginning of the debate the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) quoted what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I take us back to that debate, and quote from a different column of Hansard.
	My right hon. Friend set out our view of the deadlines and what they mean. He acknowledged that, as many hon. Members who have taken part in the debate would accept,
	Several factors led to the act of decommissioning,
	and then added:
	but I do not believe that the pressure of a 26 February deadline
	the deadline that we are discussing today
	was one of them.
	My right hon. Friend said that pressure had come from several sources and he listed several of them, some of which have been referred to today. He continued:
	In my view, the most important factor, and the most important sanction on those engaged in the process
	that is, the peace process
	is the possibility of its failure.-[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 40.]
	I would like to use that as my starting point in replying to this thoughtful and probing debate. I know that the amendments are not probing amendments in our usual sense of that term, but are a genuine representation of the views and feelings of the Opposition parties, and I hope to be able to deal with some of the concerns that hon. Members have raised.
	The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is not listening at the moment, but he and I have shared many debates and debated many issues for what, for me, is becoming far too many years in this House. I am disappointed to hear that he believes that we seek to be diversionist. In my view, he downplayed the importance of loyalist terrorism, and I was sorry to hear him suggest that I was being disingenuous in supporting the Government in introducing the Bill. That is not my intention, nor the Government's intention.

Andrew Robathan: I did not downplay the importance of loyalist terrorism, but its significance. It is just as important if someone has their leg blown off by a loyalist bomb as by a republican bomb, but the fact is that loyalist terrorism is not of the same significance and importance in the political debate. I think that the hon. Lady is aware of that.

Jane Kennedy: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and I have often disagreed in the past, and I am sure that we shall not agree tonight.
	Of course the Government accept the necessity of keeping the pressure on all paramilitaries to disarm, but we believe that that is best done through the political process. In order to be permanent, decommissioning must be voluntary, and our strong view is that imposing deadlines implies that it will be forced. Hon. Gentlemen have talked about sanctions, but I do not believe that a forced initiative will secure lasting peace, which is, I know, what we all seek to achieve.

David Trimble: I find it a bit difficult to reconcile what the hon. Lady has just said with the Secretary of State's comments that she quoted earlier, in which he referredand she endorsed the referenceto a series of pressures that had produced decommissioning. The decommissioning was not voluntary; it was a result of a series of pressures, and the Minister will know that underlying this debate is the concern about whether it will continue, as originally envisaged. It would do a lot of good if she would say exactly what the Government propose to do now, and in the forthcoming weeks and months, about that issue.
	For example, the Government have a programme of normalisation measures. Will they continue that programme even if it is not matched by a programme of decommissioning? Will the normalisation programme proceed, so that pressure is not put on the terrorists? Will the Government not take the lesson that, as the Secretary of State himself said, a series of pressures is needed? One of those is, of course, the deadline, but others are actions that the Government can takeor will the Government do as they have done before, sit back and do nothing, and let other people do the work?

Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman has made a fair pointat least in the first part of what he said. Obviously, I do not accept his suggestion that we sit back and do nothing, and let other people put the pressure on. Working with him and with others, including the international community, we seek to maintain that pressure. Perhaps he made a fair point about my earlier comments, but the pressure that led to the act of decommissioning was precisely the combined pressure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and others. It was a combination of, for example, international pressure to decommission, plus the right hon. Gentleman's own action in resigning. Working with all the others engaged in the process, we must maintain that pressure to take the process further.

David Trimble: May I take the hon. Lady back to the specific point that I mentioned? The Government have a programme of normalisation measures; some of them have already been taken and some have not. Will she turn her mind to any future normalisation measures that are in the Government's mind? Could not the Government consider linking those with a decommissioning programme? That in itself would be an immediate pressure, although not a big pressure. The Minister might not find it politic to be too explicit about doing that, but may I urge the Government seriously to consider linking that programme to a decommissioning programme? That is immediate pressure that could be brought to bear.

Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He probably will not like my reply, but this is not about deadlines, or about concessions. It is not even about bargaining our way through this process. It is about changing hearts and minds, and we can do that only by continuing with our objective of implementing the Belfast agreement.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford led on the issue of deadlines in moving the amendment, but at no pointapart from oblique references by other hon. Members to sanctionshave we been told what he would do if, regrettably, there were no progress over the next year, and the deadline that his amendment suggests were in place. We have not had a coherent argument from the hon. Gentleman about what he would do in those circumstances. That is a genuine question that he needs to consider when dealing with these issues, and when probing the Government on the question.

Quentin Davies: It is my approach to opposition politics that one should always be prepared to answer such a question, and I believe that I have set a good example in doing so. I have stated clearly what I would do, and I shall return to that matter if I have the opportunity to do so on Third Reading. I have said that we should attempt to negotiate a programmed process, and that we should give no further concessions whatever to republicanism, except when the Belfast agreement has been fulfilled or in exchange for incremental specific acts of decommissioning. I would not have given away the prisoners. I endorse entirely the view of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the normalisation and further measures now under consideration should be closely linked to progress on the vital question of decommissioning.

Jane Kennedy: That was useful, and I will look again at the hon. Gentleman's comments when they are published in Hansard and read them carefully. I shall look forward to debating them with him in the House. This debate will run on throughout this evening, and a number of points will be raised in relation to the amendments and the new clause, and again on Third Reading. I do not wish to go over the same ground too often.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that extending the deadlinethat is the phrase that we are using todayfor one year only would put more pressure on the paramilitaries, but I do not believe that that would be the case. He must remember that the Bill extends the legal amnesty for only one year, after which, if we need more time, we must come back to the House for the issue to be debated and voted on again. That is the actuality of the case. I know that hon. Members are not being disingenuous in tabling the amendment, but to suggest that we are putting in place a five-year deadline is profoundly wrong.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the last Conservative Government introduced the existing decommissioning legislation in 1997 in hope rather than expectation, and that the context is now different. I wholeheartedly agree. The situation has changed. We have achieved a blueprint for permanent change in Northern Irelandthe Belfast agreementand I acknowledge his continuing support for that. We have begun to implement every aspect of that agreement and, crucially, we have achieved a real and tangible start to decommissioning. We are, therefore, introducing this Bill in expectation rather than in hopethe opposite of what happened beforebecause we expect the Bill to play an essential part in the decommissioning process and feel that we have more reason than ever to provide a proper legal framework in which decommissioning can take place.

Quentin Davies: I hope that the hon. Lady will deal with the essential issue before she sits down. The Secretary of State has acknowledged that deadlines are taken full advantage of in Northern Ireland by all participants. In other words, if we extend a deadline, all other things being equal we extend the time available for the completion of the obligations that the deadline governs. The Secretary of State has already said that. Perhaps it was an involuntary slip, but it was an extremely significant one. Of course, there are many other factors involved, but our responsibility is to get the deadline right. The idea that having a longer deadline will produce a shorter period of implementation beggars belief. The Secretary of State does not believe that, and I do not believe that the Minister does either. How can she therefore defend resisting our amendment proposing a shorter deadline?
	I hope that the Minister will not return to the idea that the Bill extends the regime for one year. She knows that that is entirely artificial and that the signal in the Bill comes from the headline date. The signal being sent is that the Government are extending the regime for five years. The wording is exactly the same as in the 1997 Act, which introduced the five-year regime that we are now rolling forward, so there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the Government are trying to extend the regime for five years. That is their fatal mistake.

Jane Kennedy: I am falling into the same bad habit as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) in provoking interventions from hon. Members. I must try to refrain from doing that.

Quentin Davies: rose

Jane Kennedy: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in my own time and in my own way, and I have a number of other points to make that might answer some of his questions.
	The expiry date of this legislation to provide the legal framework for decommissioning has never been a factor in any discussions with Sinn Fein or any of the other parties. We have started to call it a deadline in this debate, but the question has never arisen before or been the subject of any discussions with Sinn Fein. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point.
	On the speech made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I must be careful not to fall into the habit of constantly saying what a good, thoughtful, challenging and thought-provoking contribution he made, but that is what he did. My years of practising the dark arts as a Whip have led me to be more careful in responding to the provocation that Ministers get from time to time from hon. Members seeking to goad them into making what they hope will be unwise responses. I shall not, therefore, go down some of the avenues that the hon. Gentleman pursued, but he made an important point about the concerns of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) also made a strong statement on that issue. I accept that we must reach out and listen to those concerns. The way in which they are articulated is also important.
	We must bear it in mind that the process so far has been successful only because of the engagement of the Unionists. They have been instrumental in the establishment of the institutions and in putting pressure on all parties to participate in democracy. The peace process cannot succeed without their continued engagement. There is much for Unionism to draw comfort from in the progress that has been made in recent times. I could list some of the details, but I did so on Second Reading and I invite hon. Members to look at those comments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire talked about exiles. That is a matter for another day and a different debate, and I shall not refer to it today. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution, which was well informed and provocativeagain! I listened carefully to his comments and I shall think about them.

John Baron: If the Government are to hold out a hand to the Unionists on this issue, surely the best way is to ensure that deadlines are exactly thatdeadlines. They should not be a rolling series of lines in the sand that continually get eroded. Every time the Government draw a fresh line, the potency of that line diminishes because it has no real effect. The best way of bringing all parties to the table on decommissioning is to ensure that a deadline means exactly thata deadline.

Jane Kennedy: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to say that had we done what Conservative Members are urging us to do and held to those deadlines, we would not have had the act of decommissioning that we have witnessed. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, but we have had a credible start to decommissioning from the IRA. Whatever hon. Members may think of that actthey may have their own views on itthe decommissioning process has begun.

Andrew Robathan: rose

Hugo Swire: rose

Jane Kennedy: No, I shall not give way at the moment.
	The decommissioning process has begun, thus removing the final obstacle to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. However, we must recognise that implementation is a long-term process, and full implementation may not be completed for some years. The Bill extends the immunity provisions for one year only. It provides for the possibilitynothing moreof further extensions beyond that, subject to the approval of the House. We consider that that is appropriate. Parliament will have the opportunity to examine this issue again after one year.
	We consider that an extension of the order-making power of five years is appropriate. As was the case when the 1997 Act was brought into force by the Conservative Government, the five-year period does not represent a time frame for decommissioning; it is simply the usual period for time-limited Acts. It allows each Parliament the opportunity to consider the basic principles of the legislation, as this Parliament is doing now.

David Burnside: Will the hon. Lady, as an experienced Minister in Northern Ireland, inform the Committee whether she believes that the Provisional IRA, the republican groups and the loyalist paramilitaries would support the Bill or the Bill as amended?

Jane Kennedy: If I can spare the hon. Gentleman's blushes, may I say that I thought he made perhaps the best speech of this debate? He articulated passionately and coherently the concerns of his community. I acknowledge the profound disappointment of members of his party and other parties, including the Conservative party, who feel that progress has been painfully slow, and that these acts of decommissioning have had to be dragged out of the apparently unwilling organisations that hold the weapons.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the message that should go from the House. The message to those organisations is clear: decommissioning is a process and a start has been made. The most important thing about the Bill is that it shows that the Government are serious in their pursuit of decommissioning of all illegally held weapons, and that they intend the legal framework for that to happen to remain in place.
	Amendment No. 2 deals with the offences in the schedule to the 1997 Act. We see no merit in enacting legislation that in our view would be calculated to make those in illegal possession of weapons less likely to decommission. That would surely be the effect of the amendment.
	Various aspects of the schedule mostly relate to possession of weapons or explosives, but others concern offences that may stem from a person's participation in decommissioningnot necessarily centred on the weapons involved, but on the behaviour that may accompany participation, such as the withholding of information or making arrangements with terrorists. The amendment would leave someone in possession of explosives open to prosecution, and I cannot see how that would encourage decommissioning.
	We shall return to some of these issues as we go on to debate the new clause and Third Reading. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 374.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1
	  
	Commencement

'.This Act shall not come into force until after the Commission established under section 7 of the 1997 Act shall have laid a report before both Houses of Parliament on progress made in decommissioning since the coming into effect of the 1997 Act.'.[Mr. Quentin Davies.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Quentin Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The new clause stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and his colleagues the hon. Members for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) and for North Down (Lady Hermon).
	As everyone can see, the object of the new clause is to ensure that, before the Bill comes into force, a report is made to Parliament by the international commission and General de Chastelain. I assume that, if a report is made to Parliament in those circumstances, one will also be made, if it so wishes, to the Dail. Decommissioning is clearly a joint matter. Indeed, we know that a lot of the arms concerned are south of the border.
	When I drafted the new clause, I in no way wished to be discourteous to the Republic or the Dailfar from it. It would be discourteous to put before the Committee a new clause that assumed that anything particular should happen in Dublin. That is not our business, but for the avoidance of doubt I make it plain that if our Irish colleagues followed the same line of argument that I shall set out, the report would be made there. I do not wish to alter the essential balance of the decommissioning process as one involving both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Both sides are equally committed to its success.
	I tabled the new clause because there is a general feeling across the parties and throughout Northern Ireland that one of the weaknesses of the structure set up in 1997 was the lack of provision, or the lack of clarity of such provision as there was, for reporting. I do not blame our predecessors in 1997 for any such shortcoming and certainly not General de Chastelain or his colleagues. If there are any shortcomings, they are in the arrangements that were made in 1997 and the provisions that were passed at that time.
	No blame is directed towards our predecessors in 1997. We learn from experience. Indeed, it would be unnatural if, after five yearswe are compelled to roll over the regime; the Government have defeated our amendment, so the regime will be rolled over for five years rather than one in the first instancewe could make no improvements or draw no lessons from the provisions that were put through the House five years ago.
	The Bill introduced five years ago was the background for the agreement between the two Governments in August 1997. Article 4(d) of that agreement laid a duty on the commission
	to report periodically to both Governments and, through whatever mechanism they may establish for that purpose, the other participants in political negotiations in Northern Ireland.
	What has been unsatisfactory is that it has not been absolutely clear whether the reports that have gone to the two Governments have been limited to those that have been published by the two Governments.
	The agreement stated:
	through whatever mechanism they may establish for that purpose, the other participants in political negotiations in Northern Ireland.
	Did that mean that the two Governments had direct responsibility for reporting to the participants in the agreement and not to the public as a whole? There is still a certain amount of ambiguity. We do not know whether General de Chastelain has told the Governments more than he has told the public in the series of very brief, bare press announcements that he has seen fit to make over the past five years. I would like to hear from the Minister. It would reassure many hon. Members if we felt that we knew a little more about what was going on, and whether the Government have had other reports from General de Chastelain, or have received only the documents that we have received.
	Would the Minister be kind enough, if she has a moment, to note that question down either mentally or on a piece of paper? It would be very nice, if she catches your eye later, Mrs. Heal, to have an answer. Have the Government received any reports in addition to those that General de Chastelain has made public?
	If the Government do have any information that has not been put in the public domain directly by General de Chastelain, has information been passed on selectively to any of the participants in the process? Such selective passing on would be consistent with the terms of the agreement that I read out, but it would be an undesirable way of proceeding. It would cause considerable concern if some participants had information that other participants did not. It is what we would have called in my City days a false market. It would have been the basis for all kinds of rumours and speculation and be very damaging to the process.
	It would be nice to know that the Government know nothing other than what we all know as a result of the public statements, but that has not been said explicitly; perhaps it could be said by the Minister.

Jane Kennedy: It may help to clarify matters if I say at the outset that all of the reports that we have received from the international commission have been published in full. Therefore, we have no information that is not in the public domain.

Quentin Davies: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for responding so promptly to my request and giving us that clear assurance. It is extremely helpful.
	Let us focus on the kind of reporting that we have had from the international commission and General de Chastelain, and decide whether to take the opportunity to indicate to the commission or the general that, in future, we would like reporting to be conducted on a slightly different basis. Reporting is currently, formally at least, to the two Governments. The Minister has just said that the two Governments do not keep the information to themselves; they have passed on everything that they have available. She implies that the Government will continue with that procedure. If so, I very much welcome that.
	In a debate such as this, it would be unnatural not to be frank about the fact that, in some quarters in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in this country, the feeling has been expressed that the reports have been so restrictive and discreet that it has been difficult to form a clear view of what is going on. I do not want to criticise General de Chastelain for that, because he must take the decisions himself. He bears responsibility for ensuring that the process is conducted as effectively as possible and that anything that he does contributes to the progress of decommissioning and does not interrupt it. I therefore understand his nervousness, when he comes to put pen to paper, in deciding what kind of report to provide.
	General de Chastelain would accept, however, that it would be unfortunate if his reports gave rise to widely differing interpretations of the situation that they sought to depict. To read some of his reports has been like divining the Delphic oracle: it has been difficult to be clear about the interpretation that one should place on the words used. One word that constantly comes up is significant, which General de Chastelain used to describe the welcome but belated act of decommissioning by Sinn Fein-IRA at the end of October.
	The uncertainty has been made worse because of the interventions of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on Second Reading.

Hugo Swire: Earlier in our debate, the Minister of State said that the decommissioning that had occurred was important, whereas the word that we have heard used to date is significant. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that words are so crucialindeed, they are all that we have to go on because we do not know the details of General de Chastelain's findingswe must know whether the amount that has been decommissioned is important or whether there has been an important step in the decommissioning process?

Quentin Davies: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, because he bears out the danger of too restricted a use of words. If the only description given to an act of decommissioning is a simple adjective such as significant or important, nobody knows whether significant differs from important, or whether important is more or less than significant. Nobody knows quite how to interpret those statements, and the statements themselves become the subject of an enormous amount of speculation. Rather than contributing to credibility and public confidence, they contribute to a sense of uncertainty and dispute. That is extremely regrettable.

Jane Kennedy: I do not want to be mischievous, but what I actually said was credible.

Quentin Davies: Those words are all subjective. What is credible? What is significant? What is important?

Peter Robinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will assess how the Minister could deem it to have been credible without knowing the amount of weapons that have been decommissioned. One could say that the very fact that decommissioning occurred made the event significant, but to say that there has been a credible act of decommissioning surely requires the Government to know the amount of decommissioning.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes an irrefutable point. If all that the Government know is what General de Chastelain said in publicthey have just told us that that is the casewhich is that the event was significant, nobody in the Government can take responsibility for using any other adjective than significant. To use any other adjective adds to the meaning in a way that is not based on knowledge of the facts. It is therefore a completely irresponsible use of language. I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments. If the Minister would like to intervene again, I shall give her the opportunity to do so.

Andrew Hunter: On the word significant, does my hon. Friend recall that General de Chastelain acknowledged that even one round of ammunition was significant? That suggests that the word significant is subject to a variety of interpretations.

Quentin Davies: Indeed.
	When I took the first of that series of interventions I was interrupted from reaching for my copy of Hansard. I was about to read to the Committee some remarks that are enormously pertinent to the point that we have reached in our debate. The hon. Member for Belfast, East said:
	In the desire to know and to test what the general considers significant
	he refers, of course, to General de Chastelain
	my colleagues and I went to see him. We asked if the commission considered the amount of weaponry to be significant, or whether the fact that anything at all had occurred was significant. He replied that the fact that an event took place was, to him, significant. He said that he had seen written on the gable ends of walls in republican areas, 'Not a bullet; not an ounce'. In that context, what had happened was significant, he said.
	I asked whether the general regarded his meeting with us that day as significant. He said that yes, it was. That might give the House some idea of how easily he is persuaded that any event is of significance.
	The key point in the quotation is this:
	I then asked him whether, if the IRA had decommissioned one gunjust onehe would have considered that to be significant. He said, 'Yes, I would.'[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 84.]
	That quotation from Hansard is, I fear, extremelydare I use the word?significant. It is alsoadvisedly, let me add a word of my ownextremely worrying, because that statement has cast a great deal of doubt on whether the act by Sinn Fein-IRA was meaningful, if significant carries the sense of meaningful.

Lembit �pik: What specific proportion of guns and weapons would the hon. Gentleman regard as significant? He must have a benchmark in mind if we are to make sense of the points that he is making.

Quentin Davies: No, I do not. The drift of my argument is, and will be, that this is not a sensible way of conducting a reporting process. That is why the Opposition tabled the new clause, which seeks to improve the reporting process. I do not wish to be too prescriptive. It would not be right, having given the international commission the task of overseeing decommissioning, to be too prescriptive about what it does. I do not intend that Parliament should send the commission some kind of form to fill out every time there is an act of decommissioning. That would be absurd.
	However, I take this opportunity to say that I believe that a major contribution could be made to the credibility of the whole exercise and to the confidence that people have in its completion if General de Chastelain could be given an opportunity to set out in writing, objectively and in his own hand, an account of the progress that he believes he has achieved over the past five years. I understand that he would be in an invidious position if he simply made a public statement in response to the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. General de Chastelain probably feels that he could not possibly be in the business of responding to statements made by Westminster or Stormont politicians, or politicians who happen to be in both those Parliaments.
	The new clause seeks to give the General the opportunity to give an account of the whole of the past five years and to set the record straight where necessary. I leave it to General de Chastelain to decide whether, in the light of the reported conversation that he had with the hon. Member for Belfast, East, he thinks that there is a need to set the record straight. I also leave it to him to use such language as he thinks is appropriate in such a report. However, I express the personal hope that if he does soand if the Committee agrees the new clause, he will no doubt do sohis comments will be, as far as possible, factually based, if not to the extent of itemising every item of ammunition, ordnance or armaments that is handed over because I can see that there may be arguments for not doing that. In that way, people will be able to measure progress towards the shared aim of decommissioning.

Harry Barnes: I wish to check the purpose of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is an attempt to obtain full reports from de Chastelain, but it says that the Act will not come into force until a report is produced. Therefore, one consequence of the new clause might be to delay the implementation of the legislation. How much is that a consideration? That would mean that if de Chastelain made a nil report, it could still be a mechanism under which the Act would be implemented.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is sensible to make our proposal in the form in which it is expressed in the new clause. I believe that it is. We have plenty of time before 26 February, if we act on an agreed basis here and in the other place, to make progress on the Bill and pass it into law so that we can continue the regime seamlessly beyond that date. If the Government accept the new clause, I see no problem. The Bill will go forward in its amended form, so that is not a practical problem.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked what would happen if the general produced a nil report. That would be a depressing event, but the sooner we knew about it the better. There can be no merit in continuing with a false process, with everybody under the impression that progress has been made when it has not. Progress has been made apparently, in terms of the first Sinn Fein-IRA decommissioning in October. I greatly welcomed that at the time and regarded it as significant progress. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that I was wrong and that only one rusty old musket was handed over, or a single bulletsomething insultingly smallthat would be very worrying, but the sooner we knew that that was what had happened, the better. There can be no merit in brushing reality under the carpet, and it is certainly wrong to do so in a democracy. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the process is a facade is horrific, but if the effect of the new clause were to be to bring forward the publication of such bad news, it would be better than to continue to conceal it. I have explained the rationale behind the proposal and I assume that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied, as he is about to leave. [Interruption.] My comment may mean that he will delay his dinner by a few minutes.
	I express the hope that if the new clause is accepted, General de Chastelain will say something about the criteria or circumstances that would enable him to determine that the process has been completedas we all hope he will one daybecause it would be helpful for the credibility of the exercise and have a positive effect on public confidence. There will never be a time when not a single illegal weapon exists in Northern Ireland, because that will never happen in any human community. There are illegal weapons in Lincolnshire, for example, but they are not a major problem and I trust that they never will be. However, it is not possible to state categorically that no illegal weapons exist in any one region of the earth. That is not a reasonable expectation.
	What would constitute the end of the process? What would enable the general to make that determination? I hope that his answer will not be that he will never be able to say that. If so, by definition, the Belfast agreement will never be implemented and the peace process will never be concluded. Anyone who has made concessionsand the Government have made many more than were necessarywill have made them in vain. Public confidence would collapse if the exercise were to lead nowhere. The general is a man of great distinction in his profession, as are his colleagues, and I cannot believe that they would preside over such a process if they thought that they could not honestly and effectively make a determination that the process had been concluded.
	What would be the criteria for determining that the process had concluded? Those who have studied natural sciences are used to the discipline that before launching an experiment one must state the thresholds that it must meet before it can be said that it has proved something. We similarly need to know what hurdles must be overcome before the final determination can be made, in the right circumstances and when all parties have made the requisite contribution to the decommissioning process. The general has not been asked to comment on that point and it would be wrong for him to have a casual conversation and throw out some informal suggestions on such a matter. It would be better to make a considered and objective statement, such as in a report to this Parliament. I assume that the report would be made in parallel to the Dail.
	I have explained the intention behind the new clause, and I hope that the Minister will agree that nothing that I have said runs counter to the Government's objectives and hopes. I hope that the Government will not contract that dreadful old Whitehall disease of not invented here and use that excuse for not accepting the new clause. If they do accept it, it would be helpful in continuing the process and enhancing public confidence in it.

Patsy Calton: I commend the comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). He demonstrated conclusively that the new clause has all the potential of a wrecking amendment that would halt the peace process. That should not be allowed to happen. We wish to make progress with the peace process as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said earlier when he quoted the words of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) about the need for a series of small steps and an increase in the use of the democratic process.
	I welcome the Minister's confirmation that the IICD reports are all in the public domain and will presumably remain so. We need to move forwards and it is useful to know what is happening, but the future of the Billor of the peace processshould not depend on that.
	If we were given a report that gave the impression that not much progress on decommissioning had been made, that could be used by the Opposition to reject the Bill, and by IRA and loyalist paramilitary groups to say that they need not do anything to further the process. We cannot allow that position to arise.
	Most of the debate on decommissioning focuses on the IRA, as Sinn Fein members have positions in the Northern Ireland Executive. However, we cannot forget that loyalist paramilitary violence has been the most prevalent in recent months. At every stage, we must remind ourselves of loyalist violence. Those groups must also feel pressurised into decommissioning their weapons.
	On behalf of my party, I oppose the new clause.

Andrew Hunter: I am amazed by the contribution from the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton). She began by saying that she objected to the new clause because it was a wrecking amendment. In fact, it is the very opposite. It is a strengthening measure, and an effort to breathe life into the decommissioning process. To present the new clause as an attempt to wreck the process of decommissioning beggars belief.
	The hon. Member for Cheadle said that the decommissioning process should be a series of small steps. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who moved new clause 1, would argue that the new clause is indeed one of those small steps. It is a way to inject confidence into the decommissioning process

Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for the overwhelming majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland, confidence will be found not in the presentation of reports but in the visual demonstration of the destruction of weapons and explosives? Does he also agree that the hope and confidence engendered initially when the Loyalist Volunteer Force first visibly destroyed illegal weapons is what is required? Unionists need to see something being decommissioned to believe that the process is going ahead. After all, nationalists see observation towers being demolished.

Andrew Hunter: I strongly agree. My hon. Friend is surely right to say that the real test of confidence ultimately will be the visible and practical process of on-going decommissioning. I do not quarrel with that argument at all. Indeed, I endorse it, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me while I develop my own argument, which is that, on the way to that ultimate objective, there is a place for reports that are more detailed and substantial than those submitted by the general.
	The hon. Member for Cheadle opposed the new clause, and appeared to argue that it would be dreadful if a report were negative and indicated that not much progress had been made. However, do we want the process to continue on the basis of a lie, or of ignorance? If no substantial progress has been made with decommissioning, it is imperative that we know about it. I am appalled that a serious argument can be built on the basis that it is better to be ignorant than to know that something is going wrong.

Lembit �pik: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the symbolism associated with the first step towards decommissioning is the core point here? I have heard Conservative Members say that they are satisfied that the IRA took a landmark decision to begin the decommissioning process. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that that, more than the numbers of bullets or ounces of explosives involved, is the core point that we are discussing?

Andrew Hunter: I do not accept that argument, although I wish that I could. I might be able to accept it if I knew precisely what happened that day in the autumn when the decommissioning event took place. However, as I do not know that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition. That is the heart of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford was right to argue that a defect in the 1997 Act is that it imposed insufficient specific requirements on the person whose role in due course was taken over by General de Chastelain.
	I remember the deliberations, when the 1997 Act was going through the House, about what should be included in it. At the time, it was believed that the provisions of the Act would prove sufficient. The advantage of hindsight and the experience of the intervening four years show that the provisions were inadequate.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) makes my argument for me. If we knew in detail what the IRA had done in the autumn, we could join the Government in saying that it had been a credible event. I think that credible was the word that we finally homed in on, but other words that might apply would be significant and important. Yet we do not know what happened, so I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford that it is essential that fuller and more detailed reports should be given to the Government, and then to Parliament and the Dail. That would allow us to make a considered and rational judgment about whether the actions of the Provisionalsand, one hopes, of the loyalist organisations in due coursecan command confidence.
	For those reasons, I feel strongly that the new clause should be supported.

David Wilshire: I shall come to the Minister's rescue. I wrote down what she said when she said it, as I wanted to comment. I can therefore confirm that she said that the IRA had performed a credible act of decommissioning. I wanted to ask what that meant. I hoped that she was going to tell the Committee but, when goaded, she added that the Government knew nothing else.

Jane Kennedy: Perhaps it will help the debate if I were to say that an act of decommissioning would be deemed to be credible if it satisfied those specifically charged with ensuring that arms were dealt with in accordance with the scheme that had been laid down.

David Wilshire: That is fascinating, and a perfectly reasonable point. I would go along with it, if the Minister could say what had been decommissioned. That would allow us to judge whether the act had been credible. If we knew what had been decommissioned I would go along with the Minister, but she cannot tell us, as she also said that the Government know nothing else. I therefore do not know how we can decide whether the action in the autumn was credible.
	I should like to be able to decide that the act was credible. I have been one of those who have maintained that the agreement will not work. I have always said, when I have intervened on this matter in the House, that I would be happy to stand up one day and say that I got it wrong. I really would like to do that, but I will not be in a position to say that I got it wrong until the Minister or someone else can tell me what has been decommissioned.
	A credible act of decommissioning is the key to this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made a point that I very much wanted to make when he said that in some people's opinion one bullet, 1 g of Semtex or one gun would be important. Historically, the weaponry and explosives that were held in sacred trust for the cause were not for Sinn Fein-IRA to give away, but one gun would be. However, that does not lead us to the Minister's view that one gun will be significant; rather that has led to a group of people who still subscribe to the belief of no surrender and no decommissioning breaking away from the IRA. Therefore, it is not enough to say that such a move on decommissioning is credible because some IRA members are prepared to go along with something.
	The Minister also said that this measure was reasonable because decommissioning was a long-term process. For it to be a long-term process, a lot of material must be decommissioned. There is not much else to do, and what there is will not take five minutes. If the Minister can justify the Bill by saying that decommissioning is a long-term process, I assume that she knows that there is a large amount of material to be decommissioned; otherwise, how can it be a long process? Yet she has told us that she does not know more than we do. The argument that decommissioning is a long-term process and that all our concerns are unreasonable falls on the Minister's admission that she does not know any more than we do.
	I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will consider accepting the new clause.

Jane Kennedy: I think that I said that implementing the Belfast agreement is a long process. We have seen the start of decommissioning, which is when the debate about what is credible, significant and important started. The start of decommissioning is important and should be acknowledged.

David Wilshire: Yes, if that is what the Minister said or intended to say, I readily accept that. It is not what I understood her to say, but I will not make an issue of it. I accept entirely what she says and tomorrow's Official Report will provide clarification one way or the other.
	I ask the Minister to consider accepting the new clause, which I judge to be very modest. I do not believe it to impose a strenuous requirement. Indeed, it is with some trepidation that I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that he could have made the new clause even stronger had he wanted. In her very brief contribution, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) referred to a negative report. The new clause merely requires the general to say something; I think that it would be helpful for him to tell us something rather than just say something. To say that nothing had happened would prompt us to ask whether to go down this route; to say that only one gun had been decommissioned would be pretty negative.
	If the report is submitted to Parliament, as the new clause proposesand I say this as much to those on my Front Bench as to the Ministerit should include an assessment of the overall quantity of arms and explosives that are to be decommissioned. There is no way of judging significance until we know how much the commission thinks is to be decommissioned. In addition, it would be enormously helpful to know how much of that the commission has actually seen. I suggest that that information should be required to be laid before Parliament. Then we can begin to assess what has been going on.

Andrew Hunter: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would also be helpful in such a report if the inspector could confirm that he stayed until the end of the process and did not leave IRA men with the weapons that had allegedly just been put out of action?

David Wilshire: I have a long list of items that I think should be included in a report, but that is not one of them, so I am eternally grateful to my hon. Friend for adding to the list. I shall come to some of the others shortly. However, my hon. Friend makes a very relevant point: unless we see what is going on for the whole of the process, how do we know whether it is credible or significant?
	The report, after assessing how much material there is and saying how much the commission has seen, must state how much material has been put beyond use. Credibility can be determined only when we know how much material is beyond use. I understood the general to say not that a significant amount of arms had been decommissioned but that the event was significant. Given that, historically, parts of Sinn Fein-IRA have always said that they will decommission nothing, we come back to the general's point that even one bullet, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, is a significant event. So that tells us nothing. We have to know how much has been put beyond use.
	We also need to know how such material was put beyond use. The arms and explosives could be put beyond use in such a way that they were still usable. I imagine that some in the terrorist organisations would honour their commitment to give nothing away by sealing something up while knowing that as long as it was still usable, they had not destroyed it. If material had been put beyond use in such a way that, if it could be reached, it could be used, the report should say what arrangements were in place for the repeat visiting of the sites to ensure that, once sealed, material could not be used without breaking those seals. We would need to be assured, in more than one report, that inspections were continuing so that weapons were permanently beyond use.
	If the report is to include an assessment of what the commission considers to be the total quantity of material, we would need to know how it came by that information. To what extent has the commission had any dealings with the security services or the police in Northern Ireland or in the Republic? If it has not had any such liaison, where has it got its information about how much material is to be decommissioned? Presumably the only other way of finding out is to listen to the terrorists, and I would not take anything they said at face value.

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I must try to resist this urge to intervene; it is a very bad habit, and as a Whip I would have discouraged it. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new clause would impose no such requirements on the commission to include that kind of detail? It would require the commission to say nothing new. That is why I think that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) was right to query the motives behind the new clause, which would not achieve the objectives set out by the hon. Gentleman.

David Wilshire: The hon. Lady, as a former Whip, will know the lack of wisdom of intervening. She will also know that for an existing Whip, such as myself, speaking is not held to be a particularly useful activity either, so she may have some sympathy. Her point highlights why I said, as gently as possible, that some of my comments were aimed at both Front-Bench teams.
	I accept what the Minister says; if she does not like this new clause but agrees with the principle, it is open to her to say that she will table another one that will go even further. I would be delighted if she was willing to offer us that, and would come into the Lobby with her. However, she does not appear to want to intervene again, so she clearly has the habit under control.
	The Minister rightly said earlier that there is a tendency always to talk about Sinn Fein-IRA. I believe that we should all put it on record as often as possible that the purpose of this debateindeed, of any debate about decommissioningis the decommissioning of all weapons and explosives, irrespective of who holds them. Perhaps we can do business with Sinn Fein-IRA; I do not think so, but other people do. However, the weapons and explosives are moving to another group of people who will not hand them over, so dealing with only one organisation, from whichever side of the divide, will never be adequate.
	What worries me most about resistance to the new clause is the spin that is being put on these proceedings: why should the Opposition be concerned? Why should we be trying to change the legislation when what is going on is positive? The word significant is being used positively. The word credibility has come up. All sorts of comments have been made about the fact that we are making real progress with decommissioning, yet the truthrather than the spinis that we simply do not know.
	Thus far, the loyalist paramilitaries are the only people to have done anythinga point that is overlooked. The general Unionist community in Northern Ireland has seen almost nothing. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) made the point that watch towers had been taken down, so the nationalist community had seen some result. The Unionist community has seen nothing that reassures it, yet it is from that community that the major concessions have come throughout the process.
	It is not too late to introduce a confidence-building measurethe whole debate on the Northern Ireland peace process has consisted of such measures. The Unionist community needs a confidence-building measure to show that there is transparency in the decommissioning debate. The people of Northern Ireland as a whole need reassurance that, in return for the concessions that they are making, there really is credible decommissioning.
	The Minister could be proved right by accepting the new clause and then saying, Look, this is what has happened. That is why you should feel reassured. Until that happens, however, I shall take the secrecy and the refusal to explain anything as meaning that nothing has been going on and there is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Until that is put right, the people of Northern Ireland will not be content.

Peter Robinson: When I read the new clause yesterday I was not terribly enthusiastic about it. During the debate, I realised that it could not do much harm, but when I heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), I was convinced that such a provision was essential. The hon. Lady made the case well.
	The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), however, put his finger on the matter: for an hon. Member to suggest that a nil report or a negative report from the commission might be used as a reason to oppose the Bill, or an extension to it, shows clearly that the party in question wants to hide behind a lack of information and would much prefer vagueness and ambiguity; and that to have the facts out in the open might lead the Committee to do something that it would not do if those facts remained hidden. As ever, the Liberal Democrats are the aides and accomplices of the Government; they have acted in accord with the Government on all these matters. It is thus clear that when Liberal Democrat Members make such comments, the Government are speaking through them.
	The hon. Lady put the point forcefully. Like the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) I, too, have been jotting down the remarks of various Members. The hon. Lady said that we could not allow that position to arise. What position can we not allow to arise? Is it the one in which the House of Commons would have the facts made available to it? That is the position of the Liberal Democrats.

Lembit �pik: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for decommissioning, but he will note that the proposal, about which he wisely expressed scepticism, does not specify the nature of the report. Surely he must agree that even if the proposal were included we would have no more information than we do at present. Will he explain what he considers significant? His case would be strengthened if he could describe, for comparison, the measures of success that he would use for a more specific report.

Peter Robinson: During my remarks I shall deal with those issues. If I forget to do so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remind me.
	It is essential that facts be made available to the Committee on which we can base our conclusions. As regards the precision of the amendmentto address the first of the hon. Gentleman's pointsit might have been better to specify that the general should give precise details of each type of weapon and explosive, as well as the weight of the explosives and the number of weapons that have been decommissioned, so that we could draw conclusions. If the general reads the report of our debateI suspect that he has plenty of time on his handshe will know what information we seek.
	In relation to the hon. Gentleman's question about significance, no one in the House could judge whether the amount of weaponry was credible or significant unless there was a clear appraisal of the amount of weaponry currently available to the Provisional IRA and each of the loyalist paramilitary groups. The judgment as to whether an amount is significant should also include information as to whether it forms a significant proportion of the weaponry.
	An attempt was made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) to detail the weaponry believed to be available to the Provisional IRA and to the loyalist paramilitaries. That seemed to provoke the Government. Some of their Back Benchers thought that to list the scale of weaponry available to paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland was uncalled for. However, only when there is a common understanding of the amount of available weapons can we judge whether the event described as significant by the general really was significant or credible.
	We know that at least one gun, one ounce of explosive and one bullet were decommissioned because the commission refers to all three categories.

David Trimble: More than one.

Peter Robinson: More than one gun, one bullet and one ounce of explosivethat is referred to directly in the general's statement.
	I think that the scale of weaponry available to the Provisional IRA as outlined by the hon. Member for Reigate is correct, so if the amount was only two or three guns, a couple of pounds of explosive and half a dozen rounds of ammunition, can the Government actually come to the Dispatch Box and say that it was credible? I do not believe that they could do so. Could they say that it was significant? They certainly could not say that it was a significant amount of weaponry compared to the total available to the Provisional IRA.
	I must take the Minister to task when she uses the word credible. Although one might say that the occurrence of the event had significancethe House might at least allow the Government to say that it was significant that an event took placeto use the word credible speaks of quality and quantity. It talks about the proportions, not merely the significance of the event. It relates to the scale and the impact of decommissioning. The Government are attempting to spin what the general and the commission said beyond what is justified.

Jane Kennedy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are talking not about the amount but about who describes the act as significant? That is about the integrity of the IICD. That is what I was saying was credible. If the general describes the amount as significantas he didthe Government are satisfied that there was a credible act of decommissioning.

Peter Robinson: The Minister is in a hole and she should stop digging. In reality, the only word that anyone is entitled to use is significant, because that is the word used by the commission. To use that word, we need to recognise what the commission means by it. What the Minister might consider significant might not be considered significant by other hon. Members. So we are not simply talking about the difference between[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) wants me to give way, I shall do soinstead of which she consistently chirps away from a sedentary position and never contributes to the debate.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Robinson: Yes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who does make a contribution.

Lembit �pik: In an attempt to curry favour with the Government, may I ask a related question? I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman's view that the proportion of guns handed in would be the only meaningful measure, but is it not within the realms of possibility that the people who would have to inform us how much weaponry they have might be tempted to lie about it? That has always been the underlying difficulty with an objective statistical measure of what proportion has been decommissioned.

Peter Robinson: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks in those terms about the security forces in Northern Ireland. They are, of course, on record as having briefed Members of Parliament and the press very considerably on the extent of the weaponry held by the various groups during the past few years, and several reports on the extent of that weaponry have been made available publicly.
	Everyone has a reasonable grasp of the amount of weaponry available at least to the Provisional IRA. A lot less is known about the amount of weaponry in the hands of the loyalist paramilitaries, but I suspect that they have a lot less than many people in Northern Ireland, and perhaps some of their own members, think they have. All weapons must be decommissioned, irrespective of whether an organisation has half a dozen or 600 weapons, and the Bill must apply to all of them.
	Whether one uses the words significant or important makes no difference to the community's ability to comprehend what the general is actually saying, unless one has some idea of what is significant to the general. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), the Conservative party spokesman, quoted some of the comments that I made during my last speech, which followed the meeting that my colleagues and I had with General de Chastelain and his team.
	We dealt with several issues at that meeting, the first of which was that the general was unable to tell us, because he did not know, where he had been. He did not know where the event had taken place. Secondly, he did not tell us what type of weaponry had been put beyond use. He would not tell us what amount of weaponry had been put beyond use, nor would he tell us how it had been put beyond use, but he did tell us, under questioning, that he had left whatever product was at the scene in the hands of those whom he had met on the sitethe Provisional IRA.
	The general was therefore asked whether the process could be reversed. It was his judgment that it could not, but unless hon. Members know what method was used to put the weaponry beyond use, we cannot determine whether it would be possible to undo what had been done. Clearly, from all that the general and his colleagues told us, there was no evidence, which we could have taken on board, to suggest that a significant amount of weaponry had been decommissioned in a way that would have been satisfactory to us or, indeed, to other hon. Members. There was no evidence to suggest whether a significant proportion of the weaponry available to the Provisional IRA was involved.
	The general told us very precisely that there was no programme for further decommissioning, however. No such programme had been agreed. If there is no programme for decommissioning, we are entitled to deduce that this was a gesture, a token and a stuntsome people have called it cynical; others have grasped it as a great event. As it stands, it is a one-off event, until the general has a programme that will lead to total decommissioning. That is the only kind of programme that will convince the people of Northern Ireland, provided that it is fulfilled at each stage.
	During the debate, reference has been made to the value of agreeing to the new clause, given that there may be some delay before the general could provide such a report. There is no substance to the argument that this is a delaying tactic. No one could reasonably argue that, if the Committee were to agree to the new clause, the general would drag his feet in providing the House with the necessary report. I am pretty sure that the report would be forthcoming as quickly as the general and his team could put it together.
	I believe that such a report is necessary because it would provide us with a starting point, showing where we stand at present, but what is essential is that in a year's time, when the House decides whether to extend the provision for a further year in a ritual that it would undertake for at least another five years, it would know from the report available to it under the new clause what progress had been made in the intervening year. The House would therefore know whether extending the period had any value, or whether we were simply going through a process by which the Government were attempting, by spin and hiding behind an ambiguity, to pretend that the process was on-going when, in reality, the Provisional IRA was not delivering, but was gaining all the benefits of being part of a process.

Chris Grayling: May I begin my remarks by briefly apologising to you, Mrs. Heal, and the Committee for the fact that I had to miss the first part of these proceedings because of a Select Committee meeting?
	Having listened to most of the debate on Second Reading, I felt strongly that I wanted to speak in favour of new clause 1. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) for the new clause, because it goes to the heart of a key issue in the process: if we are to ensure that progress towards peace in Northern Ireland and progress towards decommissioning take place, checks and balances will be needed along the way.
	I come to this issue very much as a fresh player; I am a new Member of Parliament, without deep or long-term experience of Northern Ireland affairs. In many ways my perceptions have been shaped in the same way as those of the British public, not only in mainland Great Britain, but to an extent in Northern Ireland. The impression conveyed today is of a largely one-way process. That impression is clearly left as we see the events unfold.
	If that impression continues, the implications for the future of Northern Ireland are very serious indeed. That is why it is particularly important to include checks and balances in the process, so that we ensure that we do not continue, step by step, down the road, with concessions coming from one side, but not the other. If one side keeps giving way and making the concessions in any process of negotiation, the result is bad and unworkable. As we go forward, it is tremendously important that concessions come from all sides involved in the process, not just from one.
	When I look back at what has happened since 1997, I see the release of prisoners, and Sinn Fein-IRA members joining an Administration in Northern Ireland and becoming Ministers in the United Kingdom. Steps have been taken such as that involving the amnesty for prisoners on the run, and Sinn Fein Members of Parliament have been given access to the facilities of the House.

Sylvia Heal: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering wide of the new clause.

Chris Grayling: Thank you for that clarification, Mrs. Heal. I am trying to make the point that the process requires the kind of checks and balances that the new clause represents. If we do not have such checks and balances or ask whether we are involved in a one-way or two-way process, the Government will continue step by step to offer concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA and we will not have a balanced process that will create confidence.
	The new clause would significantly improve the Bill because it would require the House to take stock of the exact situation in the decommissioning process before the Bill became law. As we have heard, there has been a dramatic reduction in the amount of violence and an act of decommissioning has taken place. That is a major stepsome would say an historic step. There is no doubt that the decommissioning that has taken place has not happened before in the recent history of Northern Ireland. We should pay tribute to the efforts of all involved and to General de Chastelain and his team for securing it. However, it is also important to remember that it was only a gesture that was, in many ways, forced by the determination of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford referred to the fact that we have limited knowledge of the gesture that has taken place. There is still a vast arsenal of weaponry out there and the IRA is still active in some respects. I very much hope that violence will tail off, but can we be sure that it will if there is not a further step in the decommissioning process? So before the Committee takes the next step and renews the Bill, we should say that, at the very least, we want to hear from General de Chastelain about the current situation and whether there has been or is expected to be further progress towards decommissioning.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, since the implementation of this process, there has been the very reverse of a tailing off of violence? For example, since 1999, the number of casualties resulting from paramilitary-style attacks has risen from 207 to 302 now. That is the reverse of what was suggested earlier.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is still trouble in Northern Ireland and weapons are still being used. There is no clear sign that we have taken the first step in a steady process of decommissioning. There is every possibility that what has happened is a one-off. Before we make further concessions and send further signs to Sinn Fein-IRA and to all involved in acts of violence in Northern Ireland that the House and the Government will play their part in a continuing process, we must, at the very least, ensure that a check and a balance are in place to make sure that others are with us. The new clause is important, because we must not move on to the next phase unless and until we know more about the decommissioning process.
	If the Committee rejects the new clause and the Bill is enacted, we shall send a message to Sinn Fein-IRA that the next step will take place regardless of their participation and regardless of gestures from them and further progress on the decommissioning of weapons. The new clause would provide a mechanism to review progress and to give the House greater certainty before it takes decisions that are fundamentally important to the future of Northern Ireland and this country. It would provide the House with a safety net against a lack of progress in decommissioning.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford and the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) were involved in an exchange about the concept of a nil report. Surely if there is a risk of a nil report and a risk that General de Chastelain will come to the House to say that there has been no further progress on decommissioning and that there is no sign of any, that factor should be considered before we take further steps to implement legislation that will extend the relaxation of the laws of this country to allow decommissioning to take place at an indeterminate point in the future. Full information must be on the table in front of us before the Bill becomes law.
	The new clause drives to the heart of the issue. We must go down the path of decommissioning in the full knowledge that concessions will be made by both sides. Members of the House and the Government must be confident that that will happen, because the people of this country and the Unionist community in Northern Ireland demand it. That is why the new clause is so important. It is a signal, a statement, a check and balance and a safety net for the House. I commend it to the Committee, and I very much hope that the Minister, even at this stage, will change her view and support what would be a constructive addition to the Bill.

Harry Barnes: First, I wish to clarify what is meant by a nil report. Such a report could only be about recent developments that had taken place since arms had begun to be put beyond use. Opposition Members are keen to have a detailed report that would tell us what was behind the de Chastelain report that talked about the significant putting of arms beyond use.
	Although there could not be an entirely nil report, there could be a nil report on recent developments. The point is that whatever the report's importance or size, it would trigger the measures in the legislation that allow it to operate. The proposal for a nil report is a mild one to obtain something from the commission, but that does not mean that it is not worth while to attempt to obtain one.
	The new clause is a sort of halfway house, but that does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with halfway houses. However, it does not meet the aspirations of a number of Conservative and Unionist Members, especially those of the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). They want the commission to produce a report for the House that would tell us the lot and that would be fully open. We would therefore know exactly what arms had been put beyond use, where they were and what proportion they formed of the total arms held. That would be difficult to establish as no one would know whether all the detail had been provided. That approach is consistent with the approach that those Members have taken for a considerable time as they are opposed to the Belfast agreement.
	However, those Members who went along with the Belfast agreement see some difficulties with insisting that more and more details are provided. Some of the terms on which the agreement was accepted were based on the understanding that the issue of decommissioning would go to a commission and that we would take the commission's word. It is legitimate for those who opposed the agreement to continue their no campaign and to seek to uncouple the measures that happen to be before us. That is what they are doing.
	Although the agreement was a compromise, was associated with all sorts of difficulties and was obscure on some issues, those of us who support it must at least try to clarify matters slightly. However, it is difficult to pursue some issues further, and that is why the new clause says what it does. It does not state what the nature of the report should be because it is trying to attract the support of those who would like very detailed information to be made available. However, it tries to jog things along.
	Although putting the issue in someone else's hands and depending on their report is not the best solution, most of us accept the logic of doing that. In the circumstances, that was the only way to square the circle so that further action could be taken.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I follow the hon. Gentleman's line of argument, but his case presupposes that decommissioning as an act is an end in itself. If he reflects on the agreement, he will recognise that that is not so. The end is, in fact, confidence building. Decommissioning was one of a number of measures that were designed to build confidence in the process. My problem, which has also been articulated by other hon. Members, is that if the act lacks credibility because it is not transparent, it does not have the effect of building confidence. That is the point, and it is why detailed reports from the independent commission are important. They need to convey something of what has happened to achieve the end of confidence building.

Harry Barnes: I take the point that the measures were associated with confidence building. There has been an attempt to build almost an artificial centre in Northern Ireland and to draw people to it out of the agreement. As people co-operate, they gain understanding and become less worried and their confidence in the process grows. I agree that the information that the commission feels able to make available and that it is encouraged to produce is worth while, especially as Provisional IRA decommissioning is important when it comes to the worries and fears of the Unionist community.

Peter Robinson: I do not want to pull the carpet from under the hon. Gentleman, but his argument is built on the premise that the supporters of the Belfast agreement, and especially its architects, signed up to hand over all responsibility for decommissioning to the decommissioning body and that they have no independent judgment on the matter. Where in the Belfast agreement does it say that they cast that role into the lap of the decommissioning body and do not want to hear anything more about it?

Harry Barnes: It is not that that role was given over entirely, but there was agreement that it would be part of the mechanism of the procedures. People had many ideas about what they were signing up to, and that is what is important. We are trying to hold people together. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is, and always has been, implacably opposed to the agreement, and that it is legitimate for him to use anything that affects Northern Ireland which is brought before the House to advance his case. However, some of us stand on different, and not easy, ground. We try to draw different people together in difficult circumstances. The logic of the argument of the hon. Gentleman and people who think like him is not given great consideration by us.
	Let me say something in favour of the words credible and significant as used by de Chastelain. One set of people that they upset considerably, and who it is worth while upsetting, are members of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein. The more they think that there has been a reasonable and important handing over or destruction of weaponry, the more that affects their traditional feelings and attitudes, and the more they are disenchanted by the process and by those who are involved in the political process. If it were spelled out that massive decommissioning was taking place, they would be even more disenchanted. The act of decommissioning might not be as significant as some of us would wish, but it is a reasonable avenue to pursue. The perceptions of people within the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein are important in how we advance the process.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman has moved away from the pertinent question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). May I bring him back to it? There is nothing in the Belfast agreement to preclude the report that we propose. The Act that the House passed five years ago laid the basis for the intergovernmental agreement that provides for reports. All we are doing as we renew that Act is to improve the reporting procedure in the existing structure. It is absurd to suggest that anyone who is in favour of the Belfast agreement cannot support the new clause.

Harry Barnes: I was not arguing that. I was saying that the hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Belfast, East and some other hon. Members want to go beyond what is contained in the new clause. That reflects their initial disagreement and current disenchantment with the Belfast agreement and the developments since it was reached, although it is not the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench. That is why I described the new clause as a halfway house. It tries to get better information and greater clarity into the process and to put a bit of pressure on the commission, but it does not deliver what some Opposition Members hoped it would.
	I am not saying that what the new clause attempts to achieve is inconsistent. However, it is legitimate for those of us who support the Belfast agreement now to debate the reasonable way forward in the circumstances. How decommissioning is interpreted by certain republican forces and people within Northern Ireland is an important consideration.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East made an interesting point about the distinction between the words significant and credible. He engaged in a good piece of language analysis. He showed that significant could be used to describe a significant move to which the commission might respond. However, there is another use of significant. Was the decommissioning itself significant and credible? De Chastelain tells us in the report that the amount of decommissioning was significant; he does not say that it was merely a significant act.

Peter Robinson: That is precisely what the general does not say in the report. He says that the event was significant, not the amount of weaponry, and he confirmed that both to the Ulster Unionist party and to the Democratic Unionist party delegations that went to see him.

Harry Barnes: Perhaps the general felt that the move was significant, which it was, and that even if a small amount was involved, it was also significant.

Jane Kennedy: This is the first chance that I have had to listen to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in a debate. He advanced an eloquent argument in support of the new clause. He almost persuaded me until I re-read it and was struck by the thought that we were not reading the same thing. He described the new clause as important and as something that offered a check and balance on the process. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) described it as a wrecking measure. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that that was not so and that it was a strengthening measure. A number of other Conservative Members made that same case.
	Before I say what I think about the new clause, I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and some others.
	I understand the thirst for information felt by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. Several contributors to the debate have described their dissatisfaction with the lack of information about the act of decommissioning described by General de Chastelain. I accept that that position is not merely born out of the hon. Gentleman's party's opposition to the Belfast agreement. It has been genuinely expressed by hon. Members from other parties too.
	I say again to the hon. Member for Belfast, East, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and others who have spoken in the debate what I said earlier in interventions: by describing the act of decommissioning as credible, I meant that if it satisfies those whom we have charged with ensuring that arms are dealt with in accordance with the scheme, we accept that it is credible. Hon. Members have the right to disagree with that assessment, but that is our firmly held view.
	It must be remembered that General de Chastelain has said publicly that if he thought that progress was not possible, he would say so. We must therefore have confidence in his assessment when he says that an act is significant, or when he says that he believes that further progress is possible.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford speaks of the rationale for the report, but there is currently nothing to prevent the general from issuing a report making an assessment of the decommissioning process over the past five years. However, we should leave to him and his colleagues the decision about whether to do so. I do not see how requiring him to do so before the Bill can be commenced serves any useful purpose in ensuring further decommissioning.
	As drafted, the new clause would confer on the commission a power to lay before Parliament a report, while imposing on it no obligation to do so, thereby leaving the commencement of the Bill entirely at the commission's discretion. The new clause is clearly intended to secure for parliamentary scrutiny information not currently in the public domain. However, the commission would be at liberty to submit a report saying nothing new. Even if it were accepted, the clause would not achieve the desired effect. The hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Basingstoke and others accepted that in the debate.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Lady's arguments do not carry conviction. Clearly, if the commission decided that there was no purpose in continuing with the process, and no merit in enabling the Bill to come into effect, on the hon. Lady's own criteria there would be no point in continuing with decommissioning. I do not see that her argument works at all.

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman misses the point, but I shall not go over it repeatedly.
	The reporting responsibilities of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning are well established. They were agreed between the Conservative Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and are set out in the treaty between our two countries. The IICD reports periodically, as we heard, to the two Governments, as is required.
	The House entrusted to General de Chastelain and his colleagues the business of ensuring that arms are put permanently beyond use in accordance with the decommissioning schemes. Having given them that task, we must respect their considered view on how best to achieve it. It is absolutely right that we should want to have periodic reports from the decommissioning commission. We all want to see an end to the use of illegally held weapons and explosives on the streets of Northern Ireland, and we look to the commission to provide us with news of progress.
	The new clause would unfairly restrict the commission; it is constitutionally questionable; and it would harm the prospects for further decommissioning by imposing an unhelpful deadline. Since July 1999, the decommissioning commission has issued 12 reports. That averages out at about one every two to three months. The last report was published in October. I have every confidence that we can look forward to another report some time in the near future, but at the right time. That must be for the commission to decide on the basis of its work.
	Making the commencement of the Act dependent on the publication of a report takes the power to legislate out of the hands of elected Members in this place and gives it to an unelected body. I find that highly questionable, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford got the new clause past the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I do not doubt the commission's integrity and I do not suggest that it would not act wisely, but I find the principle suspect.
	In addition, making the commencement date conditional in that way would impose further artificial deadlines on the process. It would impose a deadline on the commission to produce a report by a set time, whereas the House agreed that the commission should be allowed to decide such matters for itself. It would impose a deadline on decommissioning, because, as hon Members know, if the Act does not come into force on the day specified there is no indemnity in place for those who do want to engage in the decommissioning process.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, we do not believe that the pressure of the 26 February deadline was a factor that influenced the IRA's decision to decommission. That decision was more likely to have been influenced, as we have said, by the persistent application of pressure by Governments in the UK, in Ireland and in the United States, and also by the events of 11 September and the resignation of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
	As I said, we have made it clear on numerous occasions that we do not believe that the imposition of deadlines is helpful. Indeed, our view is quite the contrary. They damage the process, instil distrust and undermine confidence. I explained during the earlier stages of the Bill why deadlines do not put pressure on others to act, but in fact remove it. They give to those who want one an excuse to walk away and an opportunity to blame others for a failure to act. We want to keep the pressure on. We do not want to give any group an excuse to disengage. For all these reasons, I ask the Committee to reject the new clause.

Quentin Davies: With permission, Sir Alan, I shall speak briefly. The hon. Lady's comments confirm me in the view that we were right to table the new clause. I am extremely sorry that she cannot accept it. She has shown herself to be wrong on the facts. It is not true that the House decided that the commission should report on dates of its own choosingit decided no such thing. The provision for reports and the rules for reports are those that I quoted earlier in the debate, and they are in an intergovernmental agreementthe one dated August 1997. The House has never had an opportunity to decide the basis on which reports should be made, the timing, the content or anything of that kind.
	We have taken the opportunity to try to ensure that the House should retrieve the position and should in future have some influence over the timing of the reports. In introducing the new clause, I said that we should not seek pre-emptively or prescriptively to determine the content of the report or the matters covered. That should be left to General de Chastelain.

Jane Kennedy: I want to clarify my remarks. I said that the terms under which General de Chastelain would report were agreed between the then Conservative Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, as set out in the treaty between the two Governments.

Quentin Davies: Now the hon. Lady has made two mistakes. First, she referred to the House having decided, but as I explained, the House did not decide. Then she referred to the Conservative Government; in fact, it was the Labour Government. The intergovernmental report dates from August 1997. That is some months after the election, which I expect the hon. Lady remembers.
	The hon. Lady is wrong on fact and in her logic. She suggests that our proposal is inconsistent in principle with the agreement. Of course it is not, because the principle that there should be reports was accepted in the intergovernmental agreement. All we are proposing is that we learn the lessons of the past five years and try to improve the reporting process. I have set out at some length the way in which we believe it is necessary to improve the process.
	This debate has been extraordinarily revealing and resonant. I was just saying privately to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that when I tabled the new clause I did not anticipate that there would be such a general feeling that we needed to take in hand the issue of reporting and introduce greater discipline into that very important part of the process. Labour Members and the Secretary of State still seem to be unawareif they perceive the problem, they are trying to hide the reality from their eyesthat, sadly, the absence of any understandable or unambiguous commission reports is in real danger of undermining public confidence in the way in which the commission is monitoring the decommissioning process. That can only be very damaging to confidence in the peace process as a whole.
	What I described earlier as the Delphic nature of General de Chastelain's reports is clear. Far from generating a sense that all must be well because we can simply trust the general, the reports have led to the kind of serious doubts that have been expressed by representatives of several Opposition parties. It must be in the interests of the commission and of the peace process that those doubts and uncertainties are removed. If the Minister cannot do any better, all we can do is place the matter in the hands of the Committee of the whole House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 357.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Order for Third Reading read.

John Reid: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Obviously, as we are dealing with questions of violence and guns, the House would expect me to say something about the terrible events of this afternoon and this evening in that context in north Belfast. A number of police have been injured in north Belfast and I think that I speak for everyone in the House when I once again commend the courage and dedication of those in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who so often have to stand between two communities. I obviously condemn utterly the renewed violence around the Holy Cross school in Ardoyne. It would be a tragedy if the progress made last year in resolving this dispute were thrown away, and if the children of north Belfast and the decent people of Northern Ireland were to have their lives and reputations betrayed by people acting like thugs and hooligans, from whatever quarter of the community they come.
	The people of Northern Ireland deserve better and I believe that they fully support those in the devolved Administration and the local community who are trying to promote peace and reconciliation. They and everyone in the United Kingdom utterly reject those who seek to spread conflict and violence. In a debate in which we have had our differences, I am sure that those sentiments are reflected largely throughout the House and in all parts of it. So to anyone engaging in rioting in Belfast tonight, I say this: the people of Northern Ireland reject your violence, which belongs to the past, and the people of this House also reject that violence.
	In asking that the Bill be read the Third time, we search, as always in such a debate, for common ground. Unexpectedly, I suppose, there is a degree of unanimity throughout the House on at least one thing: as one would expect, and as became clear on Second Reading in December and in Committee today, the House is unanimous in wanting to secure the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons in Northern Ireland. Where there are differences between us, they relate only to how best to achieve that objective.
	It was clear in the exchanges between the contributors to the debate tonight that for the most part we are discussing, in essence, the practicalities. Most of the discussion centred on the question of deadlines, on the danger of sending the wrong signals, and on the need to maintain the pressure to decommission.
	As I made plain on Second Reading, the achievement of progress in any of those areas, including decommissioning, benefits both from a degree of contextual progress on other issues and from a degree of pressure. The question of deadlinesor as others may call them, time framesis to some extent a matter of judgment. It seems to me that there is a view among some Opposition Members that it is essential to impose deadlines if we are to succeed, and that deadlines will ensure success. On that, I am afraid that we will have to agree to differ.
	Of course we need a time frame in which to operate, but neither my hon. Friend the Minister of State nor I, nor any other member of the Government, believe that deadlines and public ultimatums will necessarily achieve the objective that we all sharenor, indeed, that they are always helpful. In any case, as has repeatedly been made clear during all the stages of the discussion on this issue, there will have to be not only a time frame that breaks down into 12-month periods, but a debate every 12 months. Not only

David Trimble: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Reid: I shall certainly give way to my right hon. Friend, if he will let me finish my sentence first.
	Not only is there a time frame broken down into 12-month intervals, but it is open to anyone, depending upon their judgment in such matters, to declare that that time frame is a deadline. Indeed, before I give way I shall make a prediction: before we discuss this subject in the House next time round, many hon. Members, some on the Opposition side of the House, will declare the date of our next debate on the issue to be a deadline.

David Trimble: The Secretary of State is making somewhat heavy weather of the deadline aspect, but before he started to do so he said that decommissioning had occurred partly as a result of pressure. That was also the position adopted by the Minister of State earlierthat decommissioning was produced by pressure from a series of events. Of course a deadline itself can provide pressure, so the Secretary of State is probably going too far in trying to rule deadlines out completelyalthough he is probably doing that simply for the purposes of the debate on the Bill before us.
	May I put to the right hon. Gentleman the point I put to the Minister of State earlier? So far there has only been one act of decommissioning. The Government have announced a programme of normalisation and a series of events aimed at normalisation. Will the Secretary of State continue with that programme even if it is not matched by continuing events and progress on the decommissioning track? Would it not be in his interests, and in the interests of all of us, for him to be prepared to delay those measures until there is equivalent progress on the decommissioning track?
	That might not be a huge pressure, but it would be some pressure. If there were any indication from the Government at this stage that they were prepared to put on pressure in the event of a failure to progress on decommissioning, there would be no need for others to put on pressure. I assure the Secretary of State that if he fails to apply pressure, I will put pressure onat a time and in a manner of my choosing.

John Reid: The right hon. Gentleman raises an eminently reasonable point and an eminently valid question, which deserves an answer a little longer than a curt yes or no.
	Normalisation in Northern Ireland and its society is an objective that we all wish to see. It should be the objective of any civilised Government to achieve a normal societybut there is another responsibility for any civilised Government, which is to protect the lives of their citizens. In the promotion of human rights, the most fundamental right is the right to life, and the right to live free from threats to that life.
	The extent to which we can normalise or reduce the military presencewhich is not a cause of the troubles, but a consequence of the threatdepends, therefore, on the assessment of whether lives can be protected at any given level of military presence. Any decision that we take on the presence of military or security forces in Northern Ireland is dependent on an assessment of the threat, not on any deal being done. There is no automatic increase or decrease, no rolling programme upwards or downwards, irrespective of the circumstances. We can attend to the normalisation process only if there is a continuing reduction in the threat.
	The right hon. Gentleman was correct in his implicationhe did not say it explicitlythat one of the elements that allowed us to reduce the military presence and, for example, to take down the two towers, was the reduction in the threat as a result of decommissioning. There are other elements involved in the assessment of the threat, not least the dissident republican threat, in connection with which there have been some successes over the past few months. We continually analyse the threat and if, as a result of the advice that I receive from those who analyse these matters for me, I feel that there is leeway for reductions, I will take that action. If there were another act of decommissioning, for instance, that would allow some further reduction, but I always have to say that against the background of a threshold from the dissident republicans. That is as full an answer as I can give to the right hon. Gentleman.

David Trimble: I am focusing on the Secretary of State's comment that the act of decommissioning was a circumstance that enabled an assessment to be made that the threat level was lower, and therefore facilitated certain normalisation measures. Equally, a failure to follow through on that initial act of decommissioning or to make further progress could be regarded as a significant event relating to further acts of normalisation. Although the Secretary of State did not make it explicit, it seems to be implicit in what he is saying that it is open to him to regard a failure to continue to decommission as a basis on which to make a judgment regarding further normalisation. I would ask him not to leave that simply as a possibility, but to consider using it in a way that would effectively put pressure on republicans. The significant effect of that would be that, if the Government were taking action, it would reduce the pressure on others to act, but if the Government were not acting, it would become inevitable that others would have to do so.

John Reid: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I take no great issue with his logic. There are two aspects involved in the assessment of any threat; one is intention, and the other is capability. While I fully understand the great stress on quantitythe capability issuein General de Chastelain's report, people should never forget that an essential element in assessing a threat, or the lack of one, is people's intentions. That was also significant as regards the decommissioning event. The prolonged period during which it was obvious that what had started as a process was never intended to be a process is, therefore, an issue that one would have to take into account in assessing the threat.
	The only other point that I would make in counterbalancing that is that the threat from the Provisional IRA that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about is by no means the only threat in Northern Ireland. We see threats from loyalists and, particularly in the border areas and south of the border, from republican dissidents. I would like to take this opportunity to say that those who so avidly seek the demilitarisation of areas such as south Armagh should place the responsibility for the necessary consequential presence of the military and security forces in south Armagh where that responsibility lies. At present, that lies largely, though not exclusively, with those dissident republicans who insist on maintaining the intention of murder and mayhem in Northern Ireland in order to impose their will.
	I have given as full an answer as I can to the right hon. Gentleman on this issue.

David Burnside: I seek further clarification of threat and intention. We discuss the threat of international terrorism as much as we discuss domestic terrorism. Does the Secretary of State include in threat and intention the further and greater evidence coming out of Colombia of the involvement of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein in international terrorism linked to FARC? Does he include that in his assessment of threat and intention? It seems to many Members of the House that the threat is no longer domestic, but international.

John Reid: Any relevant factor would be taken into account by any reasonable person, and that includes the point that the hon. Gentleman made. On Second Reading, I said that the events that led to an act of decommissioning were probably much more complex than people allowed for, and they included the actions of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the events of 11 September, the long-term commitment that was made by the Sinn Fein leadership, which perhaps did not affect the timing but was one of the elements and we should not dismiss it, the attitudes of the British Government, the Irish Government and the United States Administration, and the world context. These are complex matters.
	I understand the passions that dates and deadlines arouse, but we should not assume that, by declaring a deadline, we are putting in our hands a weapon that forces others to take actions, or that if used irrespective of circumstances will always help us to achieve the end objective. That is the point that I was making before I gave way to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

Peter Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Reid: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I must make a little progress.

Peter Robinson: Could the Secretary of State tell the people in the cold house in Northern Ireland how it is that the assessment of risk lowers when the Provisional IRA carries out a non-specified act of decommissioning, but its failure to take that any further does not have a contrary effect on the threat to decommissioning?

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman is an intelligent man, and he will understand that the Provisional IRA has carried out an act that is unprecedented in Irish historynot just in the history of Northern Ireland, but in Irish history, with the exception of a number of pikes that were handed over in 1798. Any reasonable, intelligent person must take that into account when assessing the intention of the people with whom one is dealing.
	The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, if there is no continuation of the process that has begun, people may make an adverse judgment. Of course people may make such a judgment, but we should not assume that, by setting a deadline, especially within a time frame that allows us to debate it every year, we can predict with precision the multifaceted complexity of the political decisions that we may have to take six months, nine months or, for heaven's sake, two and a half years down the road.
	Conservative Members have a particular view on deadlines, whereas the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists have a deeper, practical understanding of the difficulties, which is also exhibited by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). If the deadlines had worked as effectively as we were led to believe by speeches today, and if they had had to be imposed as rigorously as was implied, we would never have taken the peace process beyond May 2000. That was the deadline, and no Opposition Member suggested what we might have done in May 2000.
	When we passed that deadline there was another deadline, in June 2001and when we passed that there was another deadline, as it happened, imposed by the resignation of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. After six weeks, the whole Assembly would have fallen. There was then another deadline, because I suspended the Assembly. I do not think that creating the illusion that deadlines of themselves, especially if publicly declared, are always helpful, and constitute tablets of stone that will be observed by everyoneincluding the IRA and the loyalistsis being entirely honest with those who support the current process.
	Some Members have suggested that, in continuing to provide the legislative framework within which decommissioning can take place, we are somehow sending a signal to paramilitary organisations that they need not decommissionthat we are making decommissioning less rather than more likely. On the contrary, we are sending the signal that we will place no obstacles in the way of decommissioning, that there is no excuse for prevarication, and that in striving to ensure full implementation of the Belfast agreementincluding the putting beyond use of all paramilitary weaponswe will not be found wanting.
	I think many Members have missed the point that I just made. If deadlines had been strictly maintained, the act of decommissioning in October last year, historic though it waswhatever questions have been asked about it, I think everyone accepts that it was historiccould not have taken place. At the June, or May, deadline, action would have been taken that would have made it impossible, subsequently, for the IRA to decommission.
	We all agree that pressure must be maintained if full decommissioning is to be achieved. I think that pressure, and dedication, must also be maintained if we are to bring stability to the Northern Ireland Assemblyif we are to go beyond just the legislation of human rights, and encourage people to adopt the culture. There is much debate about the level of military presence at any given stage. Of course pressure is involved in all those contexts. We in Government can play our part in maintaining it by, among other things, demonstrating our good faith to the international community.
	I do not believe that the process that has been caricatured today as a one-way process of concessions has been anything of the kind. I do not believe that only one side of the community has benefited from the acceptance of the principle of consent regarding the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. I do not see that as a concession to the Unionists; it is a basic principle of democracy for all the people of Northern Ireland.
	I do not accept that the abrogation of the territorial claim to the north by the Irish Government was a concession to Unionists. It was a recognition of the democratic decision and will of the people of Northern Ireland. Nor do I accept that the introduction of human rights, or equality of opportunity, is a concession to the republicans. It is the basis for a modern, decent, democratic society, as is inclusive government.
	When we do these things, we do things that are good in themselves; butthis is the main point in the context of tonight's debatewe also do things that enable us, through recognition of the rectitude and legitimacy of our efforts to secure a decent, civilised, normal, peaceful Northern Ireland, to extend our own legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. When I say us, I mean the Government and those who support the Good Friday agreement. As a result, we bring pressure to bear on those who claim the deficiencies of democracy as a basis on which to use violence. Therefore, there is a much more sophisticated and complex debate, discussion and programme of action going on than is sometimes allowed for by some Opposition spokesmen.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Reid: I will. It was remiss of me not to wish the hon. Gentleman and everyone else in the House a happy new year before I started.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank the Secretary of State for his good wishes, and I am sure that he could find ways of making 2002 a very happy year for me and for the people whom I represent, in Lisburn in particular. If he believes the point that he is making, will he elaborate on why in a recent speech he said that there was a danger that Northern Ireland would become a cold house for Unionists?

John Reid: If the Deputy Speaker does not rule me out of order, I did not say that it was a cold house, which was implied by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I said that we must not allow it to become one. There is a danger of that. Sometimes, there is a natural assumption outside Northern Ireland in the international community that, in a period of change from conflict to peace, with all its difficulties, the people who by definition must have the greatest difficulty are the minority population. I was trying to make the point that that is not necessarily the case. There are equal difficulties for those among the majority population in Northern Ireland, who have to come to terms with issues concerning their own identity, and with not only agreeing and discussing but sitting in government with those who have been their enemies for so long and engaged in terrorism. Those are huge difficulties that no one in the international community should fail to recognise.
	I hope, although the hon. Member for Belfast, East may not agree, that I, fellow Ministers and others try to recognise that. From the response, it appears that we do not always get it right but I was trying to raise the issue. I read all the responses, some of which were by him and his colleagues. I hope that the fact that we raised the issue was a measure of our recognition of a problem that had to be addressed. In deference to Mr. Deputy Speaker, who is giving me the gimlet eye, I will go no further down that road tonight.
	Many hon. Members seemed to miss the points that I made earlier. I admit that I was not here for the whole debate because of difficulties in north Belfast. I would like to have been here and I apologise to the House for that, but while I was here and listening, I hardly heard any Opposition Member mention loyalist decommissioning. I do not notice people saying, Yes, we did.

Peter Robinson: Yes, we did.

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman did mention it after an intervention by the Minister of StateI happened to be in the Chamber at that point. She reminded him about loyalist decommissioning, but the reality is that loyalist decommissioning has not even started.

David Burnside: rose

John Reid: In deference, there has been no loyalist decommissioning with the exception of a small number of guns that were handed in at the beginning by the Loyalist Volunteer Force. I accept that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to imply that there is not a huge way to go. I do not mean to separate one side and weigh it in the balance; I am merely saying that, given the problems that we have to address with decommissioning, we have a huge road to go. We have achieved a historic step, even though deadline after deadline has been passed, and we have done so in particular international circumstances. However, this concerns not just the Provisional IRA; a large number of groups, even those on ceasefire, have a huge way to go in Northern Ireland.

Crispin Blunt: I understand why the Secretary of State could not be present throughout the whole debate. However, Opposition Members have concentrated on the holding of weapons by loyalist terrorists and a number of hon. Members in the debate spoke of the need for decommissioning on all sides. I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that hon. Members have properly concentrated on all the parties that illegally hold weapons.

John Reid: As I said, I may have missed that. In any case, I was seeking not to score partisan points but merely to say that the problem that we still face in continuing the process is pretty huge.
	I understand the concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members. When the original decommissioning legislation was passed in 1997, we all shared the hope that full decommissioning would be achieved within the five years for which it provided. Perhaps that was the euphoria of the agreement; perhaps it was the wish that our dreams and hopes would be fulfilled. Obviously, I am disappointed that that has not proved possible.
	When the Belfast agreement was signed in 1998, we all took heart from the aspiration of all the signatories that decommissioning would be completed within two years of the referendums endorsing the agreement. Now that five years are drawing to a close, I share the regret that our expectation has not been fulfilled. However, I ask the House to consider the enormous progress that has been made towards securing a permanent resolution to the problems that have blighted Northern Ireland for decades. I have already said that I do not believe that the process has been all one way; nor do I believe that it has been a process of concessions.
	We should ask ourselves whether we should countenance measures that would in any way lead, on balance, to the possibility of squandering the gains that we have made. I do not believe that anyone in the House thinks that we should do so. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that we operated more in hope than in expectation. We certainly have more cause for positivity now than we had in 1997 because at that stage the IRA was not even on ceasefire. Truly historic progress has been made.
	In the midst of all the passions that these issues raise, Members of this House who have been involved in the great measures of the past few yearsI do not refer to myself, because, like most Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, I am a fairly transient figure; there is a rapid velocity of turnover in Northern Irelandwhatever their misgivings, should not diminish the capacity that they have displayed and the results that they have achieved in terms of changing Northern Ireland. Let us remember what it was like 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
	I understand when people say to me, Yes John, but not peace at any price. We do not have a perfect democracy or a perfect peace, but let us never diminish the historic steps that we have managed to take. If we are to make progress, whatever our frustrations, we must provide the legal framework for further decommissioning by republicans and loyalists. We must work to bring within the process even those dissidents and rejectionists who are currently outside the process. The police on both sides of the border continue to be successful in frustrating their attacks. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to join me in congratulating the Garda Siochana on the recent arrest and charging of the six individuals associated with dissident republican activity. There has been some success, but I say that without any complacency, because I fully understand that one terrible successful attempt by those dissident republicans would have appalling consequences. However, I congratulate the police services on both sides of the border on the sterling work that they have done to protect the people of Northern Ireland from that dissident republican activity.
	I hugely regret that decent, ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland are still open to the threat of such attacks and to the sort of violence that we have seen this afternoon. I regret to tell the House that it has flared again this evening, with burning barricades, the use of petrol bombs, a crowd of some 300 attacking the police line and the firing of plastic baton rounds. Sooner or later, those people will come to realise the futility of their position and the destructiveness of their actions. When they do, we will provide the means by which their weapons can be put beyond use once and for all.
	I am the last to think that the process is easy for anybody in the House. Peace is not won easily and democracy is not built quickly. It is a long, messy and slow process that, precisely because of its imperfections, gives rise to a natural desire to have those imperfections removed. The Bill provides part of a framework that can address the building of peace and democracy. If it can do so, both are great undertakings to continue, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Quentin Davies: It was a characteristically generous and warmhearted gesture by the Secretary of State to start by wishing a happy new year to all of us and to the people of Northern Ireland. We of course reciprocate those wishes. I have never suspected that anything was amiss with the right hon. Gentleman's intentions and I have no doubt that he wants to do the right thing and is energetic and conscientious in trying to do it. However, I am concerned by some of his methods and I begin to wonder whether the problem stems from some fundamentally muddled thinking. There were three glaring examples in his speech, and although I do not wish to be controversial, I must draw his attention to them.
	The Secretary of State mentioned concessions. He said that the peace process was not a process of concessions and that many of the things that had been donehe mentioned human rightshad been properly done on their own merits and should have been done anyway. I agree, but that is to misusenot deliberately, I acceptthe concept of concession. A concession is something that is done, not on its intrinsic merits, but as a price for something else. I hope that the Secretary of State does not think that the premature release of criminals with blood on their handsmultiple murderersshould be done on its intrinsic merits. He would not suggest that other serial murderers held in our jails should be let out much earlier than those who have committed more minor crimes. The right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously suggest that early release was not a concession. It was a concession. It is muddled thinkingthough I do not consider it anything worse than thatto assume otherwise.
	Equally, I do not believe that the Secretary of State, in his heart of hearts, thinks that changing the rules of the House to accommodate Sinn Fein-IRA MPs was justified on its own merits. Had that been the case, the Government should have introduced the change as part of their parliamentary reform measures after 1997. They could have said that people who do not want to take their seats and be here all the time should have some other status, because that would be a good way to run our democracy. However, the Government did not say that. We all know that they had no intention of introducing the change on its own merits, but that they did so as a concession.
	The failure to see that distinction is a fundamental failure of straight and clear thinking. If the Secretary of State believes in new year resolutions, I hope that he will try to introduce greater rigour to his thinking. That would benefit us all.
	A second and striking example of the Secretary of State's thought processes was revealed when he criticised me for being absurd in supposing that deadlines would always and necessarily lead to success. However, I did not say that, and I never suggested it. I noted that the right hon. Gentleman used the words always and necessarily, as I wrote them down when he was speaking.
	When moving the first group of amendments this afternoon, I explained at considerable length that we did not believe that deadlines were some sort of panacea. Deadlines do not necessarily achieve a purpose, and I said specifically that many factors, pressures and influences determined decommissioning. I said that that was true of the very welcome act of decommissioning carried out by Sinn Fein-IRA in late October.
	The Minister of State is no longer present, but she mentioned the American and Irish influences that have a bearing on the matter. The Secretary of State has also referred to those other influences. The deadline is therefore just one of many influences.
	Our debates would be clearer if the Secretary of State examined the questions put to him, and I should be happy to give way to him on this matter. I said that deadlines have an influence which is exerted in one direction. In other words, a longer deadline will not shorten the time taken to perform the obligation in question. By the same token, a shorter deadline may cause the necessary action to be performed sooner.
	In many cases, of course, deadlines will be missed, but they have an influence, and it works in only one direction. In so far as it has an influence at all, a shorter deadline will have the effect of making more rapid the conclusion of the necessary task. Lengthening the deadline may make no difference, but if an influence is exerted it will be in the direction of ensuring that the task or action takes longer.
	I do not want to embarrass the Secretary of State by quoting again his remarks on Second Reading, in which he acknowledged that people go down to the wire, to use his phrase. However, I think that the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene.

John Reid: I shall intervene, but only to take advantage of the hon. Gentleman's invitation to benefit from his intellectual rigour. The hon. Gentleman said that deadlines work only in one direction. Does that mean that he thinks that there are no circumstances in which the public declaration of a deadline might make the action that he wants to be takenin this case, decommissioningless likely to be taken?

Quentin Davies: Yes. I do not believe that shorter deadlines in the Bill would mean that

John Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for applying his intellectual rigour to a question that I did not ask. I did not ask about the length of the deadline. The hon. Gentleman has said three times, categorically, that deadlines can work in one direction only. Let us assume, for example, that the hon. Gentleman wants a person to act in a given manner. Will he say whether he thinks that there are any circumstances under which the public declaration of a deadline to be imposed on that person could have the effect of inhibiting that person from acting in that manner?

Quentin Davies: It is possible that the deadline will have no effect. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that shortening a deadline[Interruption.] That is a different question about deadlines. Let me be specific. There are certain situationsand this may be what the right hon. Gentleman is driving atin which a deadline is not an appropriate instrument to use and will not help to achieve the objective. In those circumstances, it is better to have no deadline. However, when a deadline is used, longer deadlines will lengthen the completion time, whereas shorter deadlines, if they have any influence at all, will shorten the performance of the action required. Is that an answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question?

John Reid: It is not. As the hon. Gentleman has an amazing capacity for intellectual rigour, the problem must be my phrasing of the question. I will attempt to phrase it again. I am not asking about situations in which there are no deadlines or about shortening deadlines. I thought that it was quite plain that I was asking the hon. Gentleman to apply his renowned mind to the following question: are there any circumstances in which the public declaration of a deadline to be imposed on people whom we want to act in a given direction will cause them to be less likely to act in that way?

Quentin Davies: The answer to that is yes, and I have acknowledged that already. I have said that there are circumstances

John Reid: rose

Quentin Davies: I have given the right hon. Gentleman the short answer, which is yes. I am about to give him the explanation for that answer, which is not much longer, and then I will give way to him again.
	I repeat that there are circumstances in which a deadline is not an appropriate or sensible method and imposing one will have a counterproductive effect. That is the first category. The second category is when deadlines are appropriate and will have an effect. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman unambiguously that if a deadline is an appropriate mechanism and if the object of the exercise is to advance or accelerate performance, it is sensible to have a shorter deadline. If the object of the operation is to lengthen performance, it is sensible to lengthen the deadline. Is that a clear answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question?

John Reid: The first answer was extremely clear. The hon. Gentleman finally answered my question about whether there are circumstances under which the public declaration of a deadline can actually inhibit or be counterproductive, and he said yes. Will he therefore reflect on his earlier statement that deadlines work only in one direction? As a deadline can, by his own admission, encourage action towards the desired end or be counterproductive and move action away from the desired end, it patently can work in both directions. I would like the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's intellectual rigour here.

Quentin Davies: This is a very interesting discussion. Indeed, it is more like an exercise in formal logic, but I am happy to pursue it. This is a two-stage process; there is nothing complicated about that. The first stage is to decide whether a deadline is an appropriate instrument to use. The answer to that may be yes or no. It is a binary system, and very simple really.

David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: As I am involved in a logical argument, I suppose that I had better pursue it, after which I will give way.
	There are only two stages here. The first is to decide whether a deadline is appropriate. If not, it will have a perverse effect and may damage the objective. When one has decided whether a deadline is appropriate, one has to decide whether it is intended to lengthen or shorten the process that one is trying to influence. This seems so intuitively sensible that I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman is making such heavy weather of it. I think that everyone outside the House listening to the debateif anyone is at this time of nightwould agree that if a deadline is appropriate and the intention is to accelerate the required action, it is sensible for the deadline to be shorter. If the deadline is made longer, and in so far as it will influence the time within which the process is completed, the time taken to complete the process is likely to be extended. That is the simple argument that we put when we debated amendment No. 1.

David Burnside: During the past, confused, 10 minutes, the English Front Bench might have been confused with the Scottish Front Bench.
	Is the reason there is so much confusion in the debate on deadlines that neither the Government nor the Opposition have defined what sanction they would use to impose pressure to meet the deadline? What sanction do the Opposition recommend against Sinn Fein in government, if there is no progress on decommissioning during the next six months?

Quentin Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I shall come on to deal with sanctions or counterweights.
	I want to take up with the Secretary of State a third matter in which there is an element of muddled thinking. The right hon. Gentleman twice told the House rhetoricallyhe may not have expected an answer but he is about to get onethat if the deadline of summer 2000 for the completion of decommissioning under the Belfast agreement had been taken seriously, there would have been no decommissioning in November and the peace process would have come to an end. That is known as the all-things-being equal fallacy. It has a Latin name but we will not go into that.
	That is a simple but important practical fallacy to fall prey to, because of course other things would not have been equal. We made it absolutely clear that, after the signing of the Belfast agreementas the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Conservative party has been consistent in its support of thatwe wanted to make sure that prisoners were not released until and unless there was progress on decommissioning. We would have linked the two and used that element of leverageto refer to the question put by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside). We would certainly have used those sanctions.
	The right hon. Gentleman was not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at that time, so it was not his fault that his predecessors threw away that cardthat instrument of leverage. We were appalled by that. My predecessor proposed an amendment to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill which, like all amendments proposed to the Government, was discarded without its merits having been properly considered. Had it not been for the events in Colombia in August and in New York in September, there would probably have been no act of decommissioning.
	The Government have persuaded themselves that althoughon their own admissionthe act of decommissioning was a result of those other unpredictable events, it none the less retrospectively validates the tactics that they adopted during the first two years of the Belfast agreement. However, they should actually draw the reverse conclusion: were it not for those fortuitous eventsalbeit utterly regrettable and tragic in the case of 11 Septemberthey would not have achieved decommissioning yet. As sanctions or counterweights were absent from the Government's approach to decommissioning, they had no chance of using those tactics to ensure that the Belfast agreement was implemented.
	That classic example of muddled thinking does not apply only to the right hon. Gentleman. As I pointed out, it was shared by his colleagues and predecessors. In practice, muddled thinking has led to a disastrous and regrettable result. It was tragic for the right hon. Gentleman to admit that the Sinn Fein-IRA decommissioning in November was largely brought about by factors beyond the Government's control; tragic, too, that he should regard that act of decommissioning as validating the Government's policies in the first two years of the Belfast agreement. That really is muddled thinking. We cannot afford muddled thinking. The stakes are far too high.
	I wholly agree that, even at this 11th hour, we need to introduce a greater element of sanction, discipline and counterweight. This is not the time to go into the detail of that. However, the Minister of State challenged me to offer an alternative policy. She seemed rather surprised when I answered her question. Perhaps she was surprised because she was not expecting an answer. Perhaps she was surprised because the substance of my answer was new to her, but that shows that she does not listen to what the Opposition say.
	Two or three times in the brief time I have played this role, I have said that it is necessary now, even at the eleventh hour, to try to negotiate a global package. I have called it a programmed process, leading to full decommissioning. Of course, it would involve the loyalist paramilitaries, Sinn Fein-IRA and the two Governments. It might also involve making some concessions that might need to be made, however unattractive, but no such concession should be made in advance of such a global agreement. I have said that several times in the House.
	The hon. Lady has another bad habit common among those on the Labour Front Benchshe does not listen any more to what is said in the House. She has been sitting on the Treasury Bench when I have said such things several times, but she simply thinks, Those guys have only got 165 MPs. We need not worry about them; they have no pressure in the Division Lobbies, so we can ignore them. It is a little like Stalin saying, How many divisions does the Pope have?
	Neither the hon. Lady nor the Secretary of State thinks that way as a result of some personal temperamental predilection; they are not that sort of people. It is part of new Labour's cultureits arrogance of power and its knowledge that it can always override us in the Lobbies. Although Ministers may not treat us with contempt, they think that we can safely be ignored with impunity. So the hon. Lady did not know that I had already answered the question. She asked me a question rhetorically, and was rather surprised to get an answer.
	I have limited myselfI do not wish to be more controversial than I have to beto remarks that were directly called for by the Secretary of State's speech at the beginning of this debate on Third Reading, but I do not want to end on an antagonistic note. I am conscious, as he is, that we have had some extremely bad news from Belfast this evening. I did not know until he told us that policemen and women had been injured in north Belfast, but clearly there has been a serious riot.
	The only conclusion that we should draw is that we are sitting on a powder keg. We cannot afford any kind of complacency or any mistakes. We certainly cannot afford to lull ourselves into supposing that because an act of decommissioning, however extensive or otherwise it might be, took place in November, everything is fine and dandy and on the right rails. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have never said or implied that, but I am concerned by people outside the House who seem to think that the worst is over and that everything will now be plain sailing. Clearly, that is not the case.
	When such a crisis occurs, it is a good moment to reappraise the strategy. I know perfectly well that the Government will not explicitly accept any advice from us. Anything that I say will be dismissed because it is said by someone who sits on the Opposition Front Bench. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government may reappraise some of their strategy. I hope that they will accept that the general perception, even if it is not their perception, on both sides in Northern Ireland is that they are on the run. They are giving away endless concessions, and there is no rigour in the process whatever. Clearly, Sinn Fein-IRA have reached that conclusion; they simply ask for the next concession and expect that, if they ask for three things, they will get at least one and probably two of them. That has been the basis of that dialogue.
	Equally, on the other side of the divide, as has been said by representatives of both Unionist parties here tonight, there is an enormous sense of demoralisation and cynicism in the Unionist camp, which feels that the whole process is a one-way street and that the Government simply have no natural stopping place, so the process of endless concessions will go on and on. Of course, those two things are directly linked to decommissioning, as I have said already during today's proceedings.
	The Minister of State said todayit was the most despairing thing to come out of the debatethat the process may now take years. If that is trueand it may well beit is clear that Sinn Fein-IRA expect to be able to buy an endless raft of concessions from the Government, by promising at least not to withdraw the prospect of an act of decommissioning and by saying that perhaps something will happen next month or in a few months' time. In fact, Sinn Fein-IRA have so effectively turned the tables on the Government that, as I have already argued, far from the Government putting pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA, Sinn-Fein-IRA now have no incentive to speed up the process of decommissioning. They have every incentive to hold on to their currency and to let it go as slowly as possible. That is most unfortunate.
	The Secretary of State began his speech by referring to the Holy Cross school. It is a tragic situation and it is particularly tragic that, after the hopeful news that we had before Christmas, we are once again facing violence. It is obviously too early to apportion blame, to decide who started the trouble and to determine the circumstances in which it began.
	I believe, however, that the whole House will agree when I say that anyone who starts violence or makes the decision to resort to violence puts him or herself fundamentally in the wrong. Whatever the grievances, problems or disputes, anyone who resorts to violence takes a terrible responsibility on his or her shoulders. I hope that no one will suggest that the siege of the school should now resume, because anyone who targets children in a political dispute puts themselves beyond the pale.
	The tragic deterioration of the situation in north Belfast underlines, once again, the need to get the decommissioning process back on the rails. Of course, the Secretary of State is absolutely right to sayin the context of north Belfast, it is a particularly pertinent pointthat progress in decommissioning must be made by both republican and loyalist paramilitaries. Let me quote the figures to the House to remind everyone of what happened last year. I understandthe Government will tell me if the figures are wrongthat Protestant paramilitaries are believed to have been responsible for 14 murders and that republican paramilitaries are believed to have been responsible for two murders in the Province.
	One murder is far too many, but it is clear that, in terms of murdersI leave out the important issue of permanent maimings and the appalling beatings and shootings that take placeProtestant paramilitaries have been most bloodthirsty recently. I certainly do not underestimate the threat from them or the absolute need to treat them with the same kind of discipline and rigour as I want us to use on all paramilitaries and anyone who breaks the law in our country.
	This has been an interesting debate. We have covered a lot of ground, and rightly so. Because decommissioning is at the centre of the whole peace process, we have brought in almost every other major aspect of the issue. Even if the Government do not want ever to say this in public, I hope that they will listen to what is said by Opposition Members and, if it is possible to even a minor degree, that they will consider some of the things that have been said in the debate. They might even think again about the reporting requirements of the international commission when we renew its mandate as I fear, if the Minister of State is right, we shall have to do next year.
	I hope that the Government will accept the need to adopt a slightly more determined line as regards the way in which they deal with Sinn Fein-IRA. If the statements that I and others have made tonight make it easier for the Secretary of State to tell Sinn Fein-IRA that he is under considerable pressure in the House not to give them any further unreciprocated concessions, our debates will not have been in vain.

Lembit �pik: We now have only half an hour left of the debate. I know that the Minister of State wants a couple of minutes to reply and that at least two Members on the Benches behind me want to speak. I shall therefore try to keep my comments brief, not least because the key points have been made, and made a number of times by some individuals.
	If the debate is about anything, it is about trying to stop the violence that is going on outside Holy Cross school. We have to focus on the outcome. This is not an esoteric debate about principle; it is about life in Northern Ireland and what is best to normalise its community. If the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen were in the IRA, would they be more or less likely to decommission if the British Government played hardball, despite the fact that decommissioning started in the context of an amnesty? It is obvious that in the world of human nature and practical judgment the hardball playing that the Conservatives propose would be wholly counterproductive.
	Furthermore, we have established that the proposal is not a matter of principle for the Conservatives, but a matter of practicality. Let us consider that in detail. They are not concerned about the principle of the amnesty because they introduced that idea five years ago when they were in government. They are not even concerned about the principle of extending the time because their amendments would have extended it to 2003 or 2005, which in the latter case means that we are arguing about two years' difference. That is a matter of judgment.
	I am confused about what logical argument convinces the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that what was right in much more dangerous circumstances in 1997 is no longer right, even though the Conservatives accept that the policy was successful in moving things forward. When I asked the hon. Gentleman on Second Reading whether he accepted that it was a greater act of faith to have acted in that way back then, he said:
	Yes, that is true. That took place right at the beginning of the peace process launched by the Conservative Government and it required a considerable act of faith.
	What has changed? What logical justification is there for the Conservatives to shy away from a lesser act of faith than the one that they took back then? Despite the hon. Gentleman's intellectual formidableness, I am sorry to say that I was not convinced that his point was consistent.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that longer deadlines do not create shorter implementation periods. I would go further and suggest that plenty of evidence shows that shorter deadlines create a longer implementation period. When this Government have called the bluff of terrorists and others, the terrorists have simply said, Forget it. We are not going to do it that way.
	In addition, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that in an earlier and happier time the former Prime Minister John Major was willing to be much more sensitive to the genuine need to bring such people to the negotiating table without threatening them with a stick. Why else would he have phoned terrorists, who were not even on a ceasefire, to begin to move things forward? Why else did the former Conservative Government take the risk of an amnesty when there was not even such a thing as the Good Friday agreement? There is a strong inconsistency in what we heard from Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen.
	In the same debate, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said that I
	must understand that in 1997 the Government were setting up a mechanism to test the genuineness of terrorists' intentions to give up violence.[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 107.]
	That test was so successful that it actually delivered some decommissioning four years later. What was the logic for having a five-year amnesty instead of a two or a 10-year amnesty? It was an arbitrary call. I challenge the Conservatives to think seriously about that if they expect us to take seriously the argument that they have some insight into the future and into the mind of a terrorist and that changing the amnesty period from five years to one, which is the most extreme change that they propose, would be acceptable.
	The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) summed up the matter for me. He said that he could create a deadline of his own, and I think he is right. Of all the people in the Chamber, he is in the strongest position to cause movement on that, but how can he if decommissioning is a criminal offence and someone who walks in with guns and bombs is prosecuted? How will he do that without an amnesty? It does not add up.
	The deadlines threaten a period after which there will be a greater barrier to decommissioning. The deadlines are based on the assumption that after a certain date something will happen that will make decommissioning more likely, or people will be so frightened of that date that they will decommission beforehand. However, all the evidence suggests otherwise.
	How do we know whether decommissioning is even worth while? How important is the quantity of weapons that have been handed in so far? The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was right to say that any meaningful statistic must be expressed in terms of proportion. In reality, we have no way of being sure how much decommissioning has taken place. That extends beyond the IRA to the other organisations. Why do we not trust John de Chastelain, a man who has generally been praised by all sides in the House, when he provides what he believes to be a strategic and useful contribution on the question of significance?
	I have said before and I say again that I would take the Conservatives' argument much more seriously if they specified the proportion that they would find acceptable. I fear that whatever proportion was offered, it would not be enough. The only reference that I have heard from them in the past was to total decommissioning, yet that is not a realistic expectation, even in their eyes. They wanted to extend the period so that there would be an on-going process of decommissioning.
	In conclusion, it seems clear to the Liberal Democrats that the deadlines are not about increasing the pressure; all the experience of the Northern Ireland peace process tells us thatthey are about removing the barrier that I mentioned. If I became the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I would leave the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford with this question: if we look past 27 February 2002, and if he had his way, which is presumably to vote down the Bill tonight, what would he do the following day? How would he push the process forward? If the hon. Gentleman has no plan B, I strongly recommend that he think about supporting plan A, which is before us tonight, as the Liberal Democrats intend to do.

Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit �pik: With respect, the hon. Gentleman had an awfully long time earlier, and I must leave time for others to catch the Speaker's eye.
	I conclude with a request to Her Majesty's official Opposition. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill is about leaving the door open and keeping one barrier out of the way while other forms of pressure are applied for decommissioning to take place. The Conservatives seem to think that the harder line approach is appropriate. History will say who is right and who is wrong, but I sincerely hope that before Conservatives vote against the Bill tonight, they will remember that they asked for much greater acts of faith when they were in government. In fairness, they were rewarded for taking the risk. It would be a shame if they lost their resolve and their faith in the very strategies that they adopted.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) for his brevity. It is appreciated.
	The issue of decommissioning cannot be considered in isolation. One of the reasons why my party will vote against the Bill tonight is that we consider it inappropriate to extend the deadline as proposed. Like the official spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition, we believe that lengthening a deadline means lengthening the process of decommissioning and making the prospects of achieving further substantive decommissioning highly unlikely.

Quentin Davies: I interrupt the hon. Gentleman's speech only so that there can be no possible misunderstanding. I understand how, as a matter of principle, he and his party may vote against the Bill for all the reasons that we set out today. However, I should make it clear that I have no intention of asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, as it would be perverse to have no framework for decommissioning. Much as we would have preferred one with a one-year deadline, we would rather have some framework in place than none whatever.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The decommissioning issue was part of the agreement and part of a package. I took part in the talks at Weston Park last summer. We are now seeing the product of what the Government decided to proceed with after Weston Park. I want to make it clear, as a participant in those talks, that there was no agreement at Weston Park between the parties and the Government. However, the Government have decided to proceed with a number of measures. Extending the deadline for decommissioning is undoubtedly one of them, but there is another very important measure.
	We have talked a lot about amnesty in these debates tonight. Another amnesty is being proposed as a result of the Government's initiative after Weston Park that it is important that the House appreciate, as it is the price that is being paid by the Government in return for some progress on decommissioning. It is the amnesty to be granted to those terrorists who are on the run and wanted for questioning by the security forces in Northern Ireland about serious terrorist offences, or who are fugitives from justice, having escaped from prison. Who are those people? Perhaps the House ought to know who some of them are.
	A person such as Dermot McNally, who escaped with 38 other IRA prisoners from the Maze prison in 1983, is to be granted amnesty. A person such as Robert Fats Campbell, a member of the M60 gang that escaped from the Crumlin Road jail in 1981 having been sentenced to life, in his absence, for the murder of SAS Captain Westmacot, is to be granted amnesty. Liam Avril, who escaped from the Maze prison dressed as a woman during a Christmas party for prisoners and had been sentenced to life in prison for the IRA murders of two innocent Protestants in Garvagh in 1996, is to be granted amnesty.
	Owen Carron, the former Sinn Fein-IRA Member of Parliament for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, who gained his seat following the death of the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands was caught in possession of an AK47 rifle in the late 1980s, was granted bail, skipped bail and went on the run in the Irish Republic is now to be granted amnesty. Rita O'Hare, part of the Sinn Fein talks team that went to America in the mid 1990s, is wanted for questioning about IRA attacks in west Belfast and is now to be granted amnesty.
	Michael Dixon, former British soldier and member of the IRA, is wanted for questioning about an attack on the British Army base in Germany and for the bomb attack on Thiepval barracks in Lisburn in my constituency, in which one soldier died in 1996, and is to be granted amnesty. Charlie Caufield, wanted for questioning about the explosion in Enniskillen on Remembrance Sundaythe poppy day bombingin which 11 innocent people were murdered, is to be granted amnesty; and so the list goes on. The other day I read in the Belfast News Letter that Dermot Finucane, the brother of Pat Finucane, has just been granted his freedom after 20 years on the rungranted amnesty.
	We come to another individual, Joseph Patrick Blair, known as Mutch Blair. Mr. Blair is an interesting character. He was the main IRA bomber operating in the south Armagh area for a number of years. He is a lifelong friend of Thomas Slab Murphy, who is also known as the current chief of staff of the Provisional IRA. Together, they have been involved in terrorism since the early 1970s.
	Blair was involved in the making of the mortars that were used in the attack on the Royal Ulster Constabulary station in Newry in 1985 in which nine RUC officers were murdered, including, tragically, my cousin, Chief Inspector Alexander Donaldson. Blair was also involved in the murder of three police officers, who were gunned down in cold blood in the centre of Newry as they sat in a police car, by IRA gunmen dressed in butchers' clothing. I could go on.
	Blair was also involved in the death of Constable Colleen McMurray in a landmine explosion in south Armagh which resulted in injuries to Constable Paul Slane. I should tell those Members who do not know of Paul Slane, one of my constituents, that he was the police officer who received the George Cross from Her Majesty the Queen at Hillsborough. Blair was responsible for that bomb.
	I come to a more recent incident: the Omagh bombing. Blair is a member of the Provisional IRA and that bombing was carried out by the so-called Real IRA. The Secretary of State will be aware of a recent report by the police ombudsman on the police investigation of the Omagh bombing. In that report, there is mention of a police informer called Kevin Fulton. Fulton asserted that he met a senior republican in Dundalk a few days before the Omagh bombing. He further asserted that he smelt explosives on the person of that individual. I can tell the House that I am being informed by security sources that that individual was Joseph Patrick Blair, the IRA bomb maker. One therefore has to make the assumption that Blair, as a Provisional IRA member, was involved in the construction of the Omagh bomb.
	That is why decommissioning is so important. These weapons have been and still are being used in Northern Ireland. I join those who have condemned the violence today in north Belfast. We all condemn it. Tonight, on the streets of north Belfast, weaponry is again being used. That is why decommissioning is essential. However, what is the message that is coming from this House tonight to people such as Joseph Patrick Blair, a member of the Provisional IRA who used his Semtex from the IRA arms dumps to give the Real IRA the capacity to explode the Omagh bomb that killed 28 innocent people? That is why decommissioning is so important.
	I want to conclude with the words of Victor Barker, the father of James Barker, a young boy who lost his life in the Omagh bombing. Recently, Victor Barker, out of sheer frustration with some of the things that are happening, sent to the Prime Minister coroner's photographs of his dead son. Why would someone like Victor Barker have to do something like that? I shall explain why. He said:
	I have written to the Prime Minister about what I regard as the scandal of giving Sinn Fein offices and funds from the British Parliament. Whilst seeking to have that facility, these people specifically refuse to encourage any of their supporters to give information concerning those responsible for the Omagh bomb. The people who did that are their former colleagues and to pretend that they have no association with them is absolute nonsense.
	That is why Victor Barker sent those photographsto remind the Prime Minister. The association to which he refers is there in the person of Joseph Patrick Blair, a man who is a member of the Provisional IRA and who helped to construct the Omagh bomb.
	I conclude by saying that that is why decommissioning is essential and must happen now. It should have happened and would have been completed by now if the agreement had been followed, but like the extension of the deadline and the amnesty that has been granted to IRA terrorists on the run, it seems that certain aspects of the agreement are flexible and can be changed as we go along. The problem is this: the IRA and the other terrorist organisations know that. They know that they have only to hold out and they will be let off the hook. We must not let them off the hook, for the sake of people such as Victor Barker, the families of the people who lost their lives in the poppy day bomb in Enniskillen and all the innocent victims on both sides in Northern Ireland. If we are to build a real and lasting peace in Northern Ireland, we owe it to them to ensure that the gun and bomb are removed from our politics. I am afraid that by taking the actions that we are taking tonight, we postpone the day when that will happen.

Nigel Dodds: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). I thank him and the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), for their brevity and for allowing some time for others to contribute.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made a plea at the end of his speech for the Government to listen to at least some of the points made by Opposition Members. I must say that I doubt whether the Government will respond to that plea, given that they are not prepared on many occasions to listen to the views of the people of Northern Ireland or, as has been demonstrated, to those of the majority of the Unionist population. On this issue and many others relating to the Belfast agreement, they have steadfastly turned their face against the democratically expressed wishes of the majority of the Unionist population, even though we were told that this process was based on having the consent of both communities, nationalist and Unionist.
	We are debating deadlines tonight, and one of the problems that we have with deadlines in Northern Ireland is that they have been patently and blatantly ignored and cast aside. We were told by the Government and by the pro-agreement leaders and parties in Northern Ireland that May 2000 was the deadline not for the start of decommissioning but for its completionthe handing over and destruction of all illegal terrorist weapons, particularly by those who had a part in the government of Northern Ireland.
	Let me say categorically that we want to see both loyalist decommissioning and republican decommissioning. The reason why there is so much focus on republican decommissioning is that although republicans still hold on to virtually all their weaponry, have their total terrorist machine intact, and still target, intimidate and maim people on the streets, they are still part of the government of Northern Ireland. That is what the people in Northern Ireland find so unacceptable.
	We have seen the decommissioning deadline cast aside in May 2000 and again in May 2001, and if the House votes that way tonight, we are about to cast another deadline aside. Yet at the same time, a series of measures have been delivered to the republican movement according to a strict timetablethe release of all terrorist prisoners, for example. We have also seen the dismantling of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and a series of other concessions, one of whichthe introduction of an amnesty for terrorists on the runwas highlighted by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, who powerfully described the sort of people to whom that amnesty will apply.
	In contrast to the way in which the so-called decommissioning event was carried out, we have seen the open and transparent dismantling and pulling down of security installations along the border, in total opposition to the wishes of many people living there, who feel that their security has been denuded and reduced.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) asked why we could not trust General de Chastelain. One of the reasons why it is difficult to proceed on the basis of the event that General de Chastelain told us had happened is that we saw a previous event of decommissioning, carried out by the Loyalist Volunteer Force, as part of the process. That was done quite openly, and I dare say that the weapons destroyed amounted to a greater proportion of its total weaponry than the proportion involved in the IRA's event. Yet where does the LVF stand now? Its ceasefire has been declared to be over. Why was that event not considered significant in the long run, as something that could be built on? It was because it was a one-off event, and not part of a timetabled sequence or programme leading to complete and verifiable decommissioning.
	Yet nothing that we have heard thus far in relation to the IRA's so-called act of decommissioning gives that impression, and nowhere have we been told that there is any programme or timetable that would lead to the total and verifiable destruction of all IRA weaponrywhich we, the people of Northern Ireland, were told would have happened by May 2000.
	One of the reasons why people are so disillusioned, angry and frustrated in Northern Ireland tonight is the series of concessions that have been granted. How else can we describe the release of all terrorist prisoners, the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the granting of amnesties to terrorists on the run? While that series of concessions takes place, in this House tonight we are to have the Third Reading of a Bill that will allow the IRA off the hook on decommissioning again.
	Finally, I want to mention the events in north Belfast. In my constituency, we have seen in recent months a series of troubles in various interface areas. It is fair to say that people in north Belfast do not recognise any sort of peace process. They see paramilitary organisations holding sway on the streets in many areas. They see men of violence who previously used guns continuing to hold sway, and holding on to and using those weapons. All hon. Members will deplore and be dismayed by the upsurge of violence on the Ardoyne road today. I am dismayed that there seems to have been a major setback after all the hard work that went into trying to make progress.
	I call on everyone in north Belfast to exercise calm and restraint, and not to engage in violence. It is clear that some people are prepared, for propaganda and political purposes, to undo some of the hard work that has been done, and are not content to see progress being made. But we need to be careful with the language that is being used in relation to the Holy Cross dispute. The events that were taking place as of 20 minutes ago were happening away from the Holy Cross school altogether, in the republican Ardoyne area. That is where the rioting is going on, so let us be careful that we do not fall into the trap of saying that everything is to do with the Holy Cross school. It is not.
	We need to ensure that the measures that were agreed as part of a package to try to make progress are implemented speedily and seen to be delivered on the ground. Not least, we need to ensure that the right signal is sent out to people in north Belfast and across Northern Ireland that security will be provided to the ordinary decent residents. The proposals for the removal of two police stations in north Belfast are opposed by everyone in the community. They are opposed by the SDLP as well as by the Unionist parties, and by the clergy, community workers and others. I urge the Minister to make representations to ensure that those police stations are kept open, particularly in the light of today's events and of recent times.
	The Bill will send out the wrong signal to the paramilitaries and to those engaged in violence. It will encourage them in their belief that violence pays and that violence works, and I trust that the House will vote against it tonight.

Jane Kennedy: Our debates on Second Reading and today have given us the opportunity to use the vehicle of a very short Bill to discuss some serious issues. They have been a useful two days and I am grateful to everyone who has participated.
	The Bill does one thing only. It extends by one year the period during which a decommissioning scheme may provide an amnesty for those decommissioning weapons. It provides for the possibility of further extensions, subject to parliamentary approval. I will not use words such as credible, significant or important, but we have seen a start to decommissioning. I do not think that anyone expects all paramilitary organisations to have completed decommissioning by 28 February.
	May I say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that, although he and his hon. Friends cannot agree with the Bill in its entirety, I am grateful to hear that he has committed his party at least not to vote against it? The Bill will provide the continuing framework for further decommissioning, and it is right that we should expect that to happen. The event that happened on 23 October was an historic move forward, but it would not have been possible had not the scheme designed by his hon. Friends in the last Conservative Government, and the regulations, provided an amnesty for those decommissioning weapons.
	If we are to fulfil the promise of the Belfast Good Friday agreement, it is essential that we continue to provide the means by which weapons may be put beyond use. The mandate of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioningthe decommissioning of all paramilitary armscomes from the Good Friday agreement, and the pursuit of that objective must continue. The Bill is critical to that, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	The House divided: Ayes 357, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Delegated Legislation

Ordered,
	That the Care Home Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3965), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
	That the Private and Voluntary Health Care (England) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3968), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
	That the National Care Standards Commission (Registration) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3969), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
	That the National Care Standards Commission (Fees and Frequency of Inspections) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3980), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
	That the Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme) (England) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3853), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.[Mrs. McGuire.]

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
	That, following the Order of 20th November 2000, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Edward O'Hara be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.[Mrs. McGuire.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITIONS
	  
	Foot and Mouth Disease

Bill Wiggin: It gives me great pleasure to present the petition from the people of Herefordshire, particularly as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease caused extensive damage, hardship and disruption to the farming and rural community, to the tourist industry and to other business throughout the United Kingdom, with consequent economic loss to those directly and indirectly affected and to the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole. There is a particularly strong feeling in the countryside. The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons resolves that Her Majesty's Government, as a matter of urgent public importance, hold a fully independent public inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 into the causes, progress and administration of the foot and mouth outbreak of 2000/2001, the adequacy of measures taken to investigate and to remedy the outbreak and with terms of reference no less than those provided by the three inquiries into the foot and mouth disease outbreak and the future of farming set up by the Government, and to make recommendations as for the prevention of any recurrence with respect to financial compensation and relief and the application of European rules relating thereto and for the future of agriculture and related interests and those of the rural and business community and the environment.
	To lie upon the Table.

Sidford Bypass

Hugo Swire: I have the honour to present a petition signed by 645 residents of Sidford in Devon, who oppose the sale for development of the land formerly earmarked for a bypass for Sidford.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to take appropriate action to prevent the sale and development of this land.
	And the Petitions remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

ACUPUNCTURE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mrs. McGuire.]

David Tredinnick: I am delighted to see you, Mr. Speaker, in your place at this late hour to chair the debate. I am also delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), with whom I have debated before, in her place to respond to the important issue of the regulation of acupuncture, because there has been a seismic change in Government policy in the past few weeks. I shall explain why I think that that is the case in a few moments.
	In the past year or so, much has been going on in complementary and alternative medicine, not least the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee's report on complementary and alternative medicine, most of which the Government accepted. As a result, the Government have now got themselves a new committee to help take forward the process of statutory self-regulation for two key and related parts of the complementary and alternative process: acupuncture and herbal medicine. Although herbal medicine is slightly ahead of acupuncture, we must treat them as a whole tonight; we cannot divorce one from the other.
	I believe that statutory self-regulation is so important and the way forward because, two Parliaments ago, I sat on the Standing Committees for both the Osteopaths Bill and the Chiropractors Bill and saw them enacted. I know what a difference it has made to have statutory regulations for osteopathy and chiropractic. Having been treasurer of the parliamentary group for complementary and alternative medicine since 1987, I know how crucial it is that we build confidence among not just patients seeking treatment but qualified medical practitioners to refer cases to other disciplines, such as acupuncture and herbal medicine.
	The story so far is that both acupuncture and herbal medicine practitioners are in favour of such moves and are making significant progress. Herbal medicine and acupuncture are inextricably linked. In traditional Chinese medicine, the prescription of herbs and the use of acupunctureinserting needles to regulate the flow of chi, or energyare intertwined, although in the west, herbal medicine does not necessarily involve the use of acupuncture.
	Herbal medicine practitioners, with whom I shall deal first, have just completed a scoping document with the Department, which sets an ambitious and demanding route to statutory self-regulation for the herbal profession. The Department is to be congratulatedI have not used that word oftenon setting up a regulatory working group for herbal medicine. It is significant and important that the Government have had the foresight to make it clear that that group will have the capacity to assess the needs of other disciplines, such as aromatherapy, for statutory self-regulation.
	It is also helpful that Professor Michael Pittilo has been appointed to take over the detailed work of preparing herbal medicine for statutory self-regulation. I applaud the bringing in of representatives of the Foundation for Integrated Medicine and other lay advisers, because one of the criticisms that the parliamentary group has always had of the Department is that it has never had on board enough people who understand the issues. That is a step in the right direction. I am pleased by that positive response, but I must tell the Minister that the Conservative manifesto at the election said that complementary and alternative medicine should be made much more available in the health service. The pressure that has been applied to the Government from those on the Conservative Benches over the years has probably had some effect. I do not want the Minister to raise her eyebrows too much, because we have had a good relationship in discussions in the past, but I want to make that one political point.
	I was astonished to read over my cornflakes before Christmas that the Government have now apparently embraced complementary and alternative medicine, and integrated health care generally, so dramatically. The reports said:
	Herbal drugs may become routine NHS treatment,
	Ministers call for herbal cures on NHS and
	Hopes for herb cures on the NHS.
	It was also claimed that yoga may become a treatment on the NHS and that the Secretary of State wants to set up contracts with licensed alternative therapists. That is a dramatic change. Normally the Government like to bury the bad news in the busy weeks, but this time they have slipped out some good news. It may have gone unnoticed, but it has the potential to make a significant shift in the way in which patients are treated by the health service.
	If the Minister and her colleagues will really embrace the 50,000 complementary practitioners, waiting lists will fall. One point that emerges strongly from the submissions made by complementary practitioners, especially acupuncturists, is that they believe that they achieve a 30 per cent. improvement rate when treating patients. Other benefits would include reductions in drugs bills.
	Acupuncture is so important because it can treat many different afflictions that it is sometimes difficult to treat within the health service, possibly because of lack of resources and overstretched doctors and sometimes because other treatments are not successful. Acupuncture has been successfully used in drug addiction, treatment of pain, musculoskeletal problems and asthma.
	The Minister may not be aware of the following three examples. A team at Derriford hospital in Devon, headed by Sarah Budd, who recently won an integrated health care award, provides a maternity acupuncture service. The hospital has about 4,500 births a year and the service offers a choice of pain relief for women in labour. Because it was such a success, it was expanded to a popular in-patient and out-patient service for antenatal and post-natal problems. Nearer to my Leicestershire constituency, the Kingsmill hospital in Sutton in Ashfield, which is in Nottinghamshire, has been treating eight pregnant ladies for back pain, and that also has been very successful. Those projects should be encouraged, as should the project at the Claydon health centre in Manchester, which uses acupuncture alongside hypnotherapy in smoking cessation treatment. I have given up smoking and I know how hard it is. The Government have a project to reduce smokingI have raised the issue twice at recent Question Timesand the Minister should consider incorporating acupuncture in that plan
	The British Academy of Western Acupuncture gave me a list of the different afflictions that acupuncture can treat, and they include migraine, trigeminal neuralgia, asthma, bronchitis, menopausal problems, digestive problems, hiatus hernia, colitis, nausea, vomiting, recurrent cystitis, bed-wetting, eczema, psoriasis, hay fever, sinusitis and anxiety. Just about every treatment can be treated using acupuncture.
	The herbalists are likely to achieve self-regulation first, followed by the acupuncturists, but the Minister must focus on the issue of managing two registers. Broadly speaking, it has been agreed in the Department that herbal medicinea category that includes western herbal medicine, the Indian Ayurveda discipline and the traditional Chinese herbalismshould all be regulated as one group. The three different disciplines would be treated in a sort of federal way, with one system of regulation.
	Acupuncture should be treated separately. That is my view: some people disagree, but the Minister should not be blown off course. She must stick with the two registers, one for herbalists and one for acupuncturists. The experts in this country who have been taking the matter forward have produced a scheme that has required a lot of careful negotiation.
	However, we must find a mechanism to ensure that those who practise both disciplines do not have to pay two registration fees. That was a problem for osteopaths and chiropractors, who found the combined fee for the two registers to which they belonged of more than 1,000 to be prohibitive.
	Secondly, the acupuncturists' register must be all-inclusive and embrace all the different bodies. In particular, it must cover the British Medical Acupuncture Society, the Acupuncture Association of Chartered Physiotherapists and the British Acupuncture Council. Each of those bodies has some 2,000 members, but the other, smaller groups are no less important.
	Regulation is important because it builds confidence. It gives patients the confidence to go to these practitioners, and it makes it much more likely that doctors will be prepared to refer patients to complementary practitioners. I hope that that will make possible a dramatic increase in the numbers of people treated on the NHS. I think that acupuncture should be available, free at the point of delivery, at most GPs' surgeries and most NHS hospitals. That should be the objective.
	Regulatory bodies have to be financed. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government would be prepared to produce some of the funding for the registers for acupuncturists and for herbalists. That matter needs to be resolved at an early stage.
	I shall not say too much more, as I want the Minister to have a proper chance to answer the debate. It is always unfortunate when Ministers get squeezed for time at the end of Adjournment debates, so I shall give her the best part of a quarter of an hour to reply. However, research is a key issue. People ask where the research on acupuncture can be found, as they do not know enough about it, but the answer is that a lot of research has been done.
	We sometimes forget that the People's Republic of China, the origin of Chinese medicine and acupuncture, has a population of 1.273 billion people. The country has 67,000 hospitals, and the anecdotal evidence gathered over the 2,000 years for which acupuncture has been used is overwhelming. There must be studies in Chinese that could be translated into English. Instead of initiating new studies, I believe that we should get our embassy in China to translate some existing surveys. That would engender confidence in this country, and help to take acupuncture forward.
	Finally, some other organisations have raised some points to which I should like to refer. The European Federation of Modern Acupuncture has argued that there should be a complete audit of how acupuncture is used in the private sector, to determine how best to use it in the public sector. It also suggested that the more controversial acupuncture treatmentssuch as the Voll technique, which tries to identify health dysfunction by the reaction to needlesshould be thoroughly analysed. I support that.
	The Modern Acupuncture Association has stated that its practitioners can improve the health of at least 30 per cent. of people referred to them. It added:
	In chronic diseases, acupuncture may reduce the need for drugs in 30 per cent. of patients involving acute conditions such as sciatic, headaches, glandular disfunctions.
	Another key point concerns the costs that can be saved, as the needles are extremely inexpensive when compared to some vastly expensive drugs. That is why in the past the drugs industry has, generally speaking, taken a disparaging view of complementary medicine and pooh-poohed it. Fortunately, that situation has changed.
	The British Academy of Western Acupuncture has written to say that the tendency in the national health service is to refer a patient to the acupuncturist when all else has failed. Mr. George Nieman, the principal, writes:
	I can assure you that the results are very favourable but there is little doubt that if the patients were referred to the acupuncturists first, a better result could be achieved.
	He also talks about expenditure and points out that under current arrangements, treatments are frequently rationed to six only, whereas an acupuncturist needs about 10 treatments to make an impact. Perhaps the Minister will address that point.
	The British Acupuncture Council argues that doctors should at least be able to meet World Health Organisation standards of acupuncture education. That should be the minimum requirement. I think that the time has gone for doctors merely to say, It probably won't do you any harm. Doctors have to know how homeopathy works and about the principles of herbal medicine, the pulses and chi in Chinese medicine. It is no good telling patients that such treatments will probably do them no harm.
	I have initiated this debate because I think that it is crucial to have statutory self-regulation to improve the way in which acupuncture is delivered in this country. I also think that, at a time when the Secretary of State for Health is sending patients abroad for treatment, it is crucial to make better use of the roughly 10,000 acupuncturists who are available to work in the health service.
	I shall finish by paraphrasing passages from a lovely book called The Watching Tree by Adeline Yen Mah, a Chinese lady who was brought up in Shanghai and Hong Kong and came to live in the west. She went with her aunt, who had developed a lump in her breast, to see a Chinese physician in Shanghai. The doctor did not examine her at all but simply took her hand for 10 minutes and studied it. Mrs. Yen Mah could see her aunt getting nervous. The practitioner said that he was well aware that her aunt had a lump. He continued:
	When you are older, you will come to realise that everything in one's body depends on the flow of qi
	or energy. He continued:
	That flow is carried by blood and reflected in the twenty-eight types of pulses which I can differentiate. By her pulse, I can detect any type of illness she may be suffering from. In a way, you can say that her pulse is tapping out her diagnosis and transmitting it to me through my fingers.
	After the consultation, the aunt received herbs from what was described as a strange looking cabinet. Mrs. Yen Mah said:
	We left the doctor's office without him examining any part of Aunt Baba but her wrist.
	The aunt took the medicine. The author says:
	We met again thirty-one years later. I asked Aunt Baba about her breast mass. She told me it had never gone away but had remained the same all those years.
	She lived to tell the tale. That wonderful system of medicine, about which we in the west do not have a great enough awareness as yet, saved that person's life.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) for raising the regulation of acupuncture and its use in the NHS. I pay tribute to his unflagging enthusiasm for complementary and alternative therapies. He has raised them on a number of occasions and we have discussed them. Let me, however, sound a small note of caution at the outset. I would not like him to run away with the idea that complementary and alternative therapies are the answer to all our problems in the national health service, although they can clearly make a significant contribution.
	A number of therapies which not very many years ago would have been dismissed as fringe activities are beginning to be taken seriously by orthodox medicine. Osteopathy and chiropractic have joined the established health professions by gaining statutory recognition. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, herbal medicine and acupuncture are now making serious preparations to gain that ultimate recognition. Other therapies are beginning to strengthen their regulationby bringing together a range of the diverse bodies involved to hold joint discussionsand that is much to be welcomed.
	Acupuncture has already attracted interest in the NHS. A BMA report on acupuncture, published in June 2000, identified a growing interest in acupuncture among GPs, and called for improvements and strengthening of its regulation. Acupuncture was one of the therapies included in the complementary medicine information pack that was sent to primary care groups in July 2000. The pack outlines a range of complementary therapies; it describes what is involved and sets out how primary care groupsand now primary care trustscan begin to commission such services. It does not pretend to act as formal guidance, but highlights where complementary and alternative therapies can be useful.
	The fact that acupuncture can help in treating nausea, back pain, tooth pain, migraine and other forms of pain is well recognised. It was the subject of a complete review of the evidence base that was published last November. There is a developing recognition of the evidence base for acupuncture. It is important to note, however, that the therapy cannot apply to the whole range of ailments. It is essential that we have a good, strong, well recognised evidence base for such therapies.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned smoking cessation. A review of the evidence revealed that in 21 trials acupuncture was no better than placebos in securing long-term abstinence from smoking. In fact, it was less successful than nicotine replacement therapy. We must be aware of the contribution that can be made by acupuncture, while also being rigorous about the process. It is through such rigour that there will be acceptance, and people will feel confident and safe in making referrals. We need a balanced consideration of the issues.
	Other sources have publicised the effective use of acupuncture. NHS Direct Online, in its new health encyclopaedia, includes advice on the use of acupuncture. It focuses mainly on types of pain relief, where it has been proven to be of most use.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, the recent awards for good practice in integrated health care highlighted the work carried out in maternity provision at Derriford hospital. It has been suggested that the hospital might consider applying for beacon status, as a means of achieving wider dissemination and knowledge of the services provided in its maternity unit.
	Acupuncture is already used by many, many NHS professionals. It would certainly be desirable if more of them could provide acupuncture. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of doctor training and of ensuring that, through their curriculum and their education, doctors are made aware of the range of complementary therapies. The final draft of Tomorrow's Doctors, currently being prepared by the professions, refers to the possibility of background instruction in complementary and alternative therapies for trainee doctors. That is an important step in ensuring that doctors are aware of the evidence base and the available therapies.
	Even with more qualified NHS staff, however, there will be a need to expand the range of professional acupuncturiststhose who practise that therapy exclusivelyand there should be more scope for NHS providers to engage their services. That is why a new, professional, regulator of acupuncture could help the NHS by advising on the training and competencies needed by NHS staff to carry out those services. As the profession grows, equality of access to acupuncture on the NHS will ease considerably. Access is not universal and it will increase as the profession becomes more established and acquires more publicity and greater standing through regulation.
	Acupuncture is generally considered relatively safe compared with other forms of treatment. However, in a few cases it has been known to have serious adverse effects, and its reliance on the insertion of needles clearly poses a risk to patients. Risk can be minimised by ensuring that acupuncture is administered to high standards of safety and competence by properly trained therapists. That requires effective regulation to define that competence and the necessary training standards, so that patients and the public can rely on the safety of the service.
	By comparison with some of the other therapies, acupuncture already has in place many of the features that provide effective regulation on a voluntary basis. Most of those who practise acupuncture full time are regulated by the British Acupuncture Councilan organisation of some 2,200 members that was formed in 1995 by bringing together the membership of five disparate professional groups. The council was favourably mentioned in a House of Lords Select Committee report, not least because the council had formed an independent accreditation board for educational standards and was well on the way to setting up proper regulation.
	In this country, two different groups use acupuncture in different ways. One group consists mostly of professional acupuncturists, who are fully trained in the holistic Chinese approach. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the relationship between traditional Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture. The other group consists of established conventional health professionals, who are already regulated on a statutory basis in connection with their majority employment. Whether they are nurses, physiotherapists or general practitioners, they use acupuncture in their more conventional practice. They may have had more limited training and may make more limited use of acupuncture than the professional acupuncturists who operate full time.
	It is very important that those two groups come together and collaborate. They have already carried out joint research, illustrated by articles published in the British Medical Journal in September last year, so the groups are considering such issues together. It is important that, when we begin to develop the regulation, damaging splits should not occur between the different forms of practice. Those groups have many issues in common, and they can come together to help to make the regulation effective, safe and of comfort to patients; and to ensure that the whole acupuncture profession can function properly in the future.
	Safety is clearly a key issue for the Government. That is why we want to try to appoint a single, authentic source of professional expertise to protect patients' interests. I am extremely pleased that members of the British Acupuncture Council have supported the case for strong self-regulation. At its recent annual general meeting, the ballot was overwhelmingly in favour of taking forward such steps.
	We want to ensure that we create the body with professional expertise, so that it can speak with authority on behalf of acupuncture as practised in the United Kingdom, and so that it can encourage competent practice. We also want to try to ensure that we embrace the whole range of approaches to acupuncture in taking that forward. We can build on the approach that has been taken in relation to herbal medicine by ensuring that we set up proper working groups to consider the issues, that those groups meet regularly and make recommendations, and that the Department of Health is involved.
	The way in which herbal medicine has been taken forwardwe are involving lay peopleprovides an important model to ensure that we have the widest possible agreement on such issues. A working group has been appointed to consider herbal medicine, and it is a little in advance of the one considering acupuncture at the moment, but I hope that both bodies can learn from their joint experience as they progress.
	The working group on herbal medicine will make recommendations which will form the basis for a subsequent order under section 60 of the Health Act 1999. Clearly, there will be a great deal of work to do before we reach that point, but it is important that this be a joint enterprise with the Government, so that we can embrace the recommendations from the consultation exercise properly in the necessary legislation to give the professions a proper statutory footing.
	It is important that the bodies play a major role in deciding how to make progress. This is not a matter for the Government to dictate; it is for the people involved in the service in the professionsthe people who treat patientsto make their recommendations. I understand that there will be a meeting on 31 January when all the parties will get together. The Department of Health will be fully represented at that meeting, and we will begin to see dramatic progress.
	I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we already support a great deal of research in this area. There are two major research projects, and about 350,000 is being spent on research, but clearly more work remains to be done. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was involved in preparations for the regulation of osteopathy and chiropractic medicine, and I am sure that his contributions will continue to be extremely helpful in developing the statutory regulation of herbal medicines and acupuncture. I urge him to maintain his involvement and to ensure that he continues to contribute to that process as it develops. Indeed, I urge other hon. Members who are members of the all-party group who have an interest in such issues to ensure that they take part in the consultation that takes place.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about the Government's contribution to the cost of regulation. Clearly, regulation costs money. As professions become increasingly successful, the unit costs can be spread more widely and thus perhaps become more manageable. We will make a contribution in the form of the section 60 order, the preparations, and the consultation process. If there is a good, strong case for us to contribute to the profession's infrastructure, we shall certainly consider that in so far as we can.
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.